You post a definition that applies directly to the metaphysical nature of evolution and then merely pretend that it doesn't. Course, none of the little evos will 'get it' cause you told them what to think with your glib remark.
So what part of that definition did you not understand?
Do we need to go over the difference between *evidence* and 'interpretations of evidence' again?
You post a definition that applies directly to the metaphysical nature of evolution and then merely pretend that it doesn't.
Your contention that evolution (and everything else) is metaphysical is itself metaphysical, and has nothing to do with the real world.