A population is the sum of the individuals in this case so your argument is null. Your statement is as I said a very nonsensical truism and it does not in any way have anything to do with the transformation of species into more complex ones. Even if a subset of the population split off and had a different proportion of alleles than the main population, nothing new would have been created which is what evolution requires in order for species to have grown progressively more complex from the single celled organisms to humans. So the definition of evolution as a change in allele frequency is a cowardly redefinition of the theory. It shows that to find anything remotely substantiating evolution, evolutionists have to throw the essence of the theory away.
On further reflection, I feel compelled to also point out that you were specifically NOT using sums of individuals to make your point. You claimed in post 593 that "the 'frequency' of alelles in a population changes with each birth."
I reiterate my offer to explain the equations you have repeated, but not understood. Or am I to infer that you have conceeded the point?