Template talk:Cover abstract/Evolution

Evolution versus biological or non-biological evolution

I'm requesting that the following improvement be considered for this page.

Change: "Evolution refers to"...

To say: "Evolution, in the context of biology, refers to"...

Reason: It is deceptive to pass off a definition of biological evolution as a definition of evolution.

The adjective "biological" can used to modify or narrow down the meaning of "evolution", just as "non-biological" can, but a definition which accurately describes a type of "biological evolution" may fall short of accurately describing "evolution", which is historically and etymologically the rolling out of change, and modernly the process of change accumulating or rolling out.

Imagine if a definition of non-biological evolution had been passed off as a definition of evolution instead.

Consider the following example: Evolution refers to the process of accumulating change or the rolling out of change in non-biological items, non-biological entities, non-biological substances, or non-biological collections.

Would you consider that an honest definition of evolution? I would not. It is an honest definition of non-biological evolution but not an honest definition of evolution because it arbitrarily excludes biological evolution.

Likewise, a definition of evolution which arbitrarily excludes all evolution other than that of biological populations, is not an honest definition of evolution, nor even an honest definition of the most common type of evolution but rather an honest definition of an important type of biological evolution, which is deceptive when passed off as a definition of evolution without so much as specifying the narrow context in which the term is used in such a way.

I present as an observable example, the evolution of the contents of any page on this site, which is by no means a biological population's inherited traits.

DonaldKronos (talk) 20:22, 28 February 2015 (UTC)