[Ichneumon]

I understand it perfectly.

Not that I've noticed.

I understand that it is used to mean whatever someone wants it to mean.

Then you understand it incorrectly.

When it is used about living things it means undesigned

No, it does not.

and rice was designed by human hands so it is a false use of the word.

Until just the last few years when direct genetic engineering became possible, the refinement of rice was hardly "designed by human hands", it was instead improved by humans who first unwittingly drove the evolution of rice, then later purposely directed the evolution. But it was still done via the process of evolution (reproduction, variation, and selection).

It's not a "false use of the word" at all. Selective breeding (and/or cross-breeding) is still evolution, in every sense of the word.

[venit_victimarius_fuit_vicit]

'It's not a "false use of the word" at all. Selective breeding (and/or cross-breeding) is still evolution, in every sense of the word.'

I think his problem with calling changes in rice due to mutation 'evolution' is the fact that Neo-Darwinists apply 'evolution' to every change great or small that has is reproduced in a population. But is this evolution? You would like us to think so. There has been no observed mutation that has been shown to add relevent information content to a genome. Neo-Darwinists like to blur the distinction between 'macro' and 'micro' evolution asserting that since we can see 'micro' changes this must mean 'macro' changes are possible. Such is the case with Darwin's finches, bacterial resistance to antibiotics, etc...