Sounds to me like rhetorical deceit then.
It might have been if I hadn't explained it within the context of my message. However, I did explain it within the context of my message. You, however, cut out that explanation and pretended that I never made it so that you could criticize me for making a point that I never made. That is called lying.
Nevertheless it is not a definition of the word evolution either.
People who know what they are talking about say differently. Don't like that it is a definition? Don't like that the basic definition of the word 'evolution' is 'change in allele frequency over time'? Feel a need to insist that the definition also include something about the change driving a change within the species even though such a qualifier is not in the definition? Too bad. Your not wanting it to be a definition because it prevents you from scoring points isn't my problem and it isn't the problem of the people who have established that definition.
People who know what they are talking about say differently. Don't like that it is a definition?Well they don't know what they are talking about if they limit the definition of evolution to "'evolution' is 'change in allele frequency over time'". That is a weasel definition used by Darwininians whenever some of their more preposterous examples of evolution are questioned. Any non-cloned parents having a child will produce a change in allele frequency over time.
What is Evolution?
Most non-scientists seem to be quite confused about precise definitions of biological evolution. Such confusion is due in large part to the inability of scientists to communicate effectively to the general public and also to confusion among scientists themselves about how to define such an important term.