I mean this genuinely, not snidely, but it would really help you grab the conceptual side of evolution if you were to actually write your own definitions rather than copying and pasting sentences from other sources.
For example, "Since the development of modern genetics in the 1940s, evolution has been defined more specifically as a change in the frequency of alleles in a population from one generation to the next" is taken from the December 28th section of
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:...vious_articles
It's like with learning anything. Simple copying, even if you do read it, is not a particularly good aid to memory. It's when you translate it into your own words that meaning begins to stay with you.
The other point I would say is that it is creationists who have tried so hard to slap the label of "evolution" onto such a broad range of sciences. As used by the scientific community, the Theory of Evolution refers
only to biological evolution. Nothing else. The actual
word, evolution, is just that. A word. It has been around and used since before Darwin. In exactly the same way that "revolution" was a word in use before France in 1789.
The reason that creationists try to slap "evolution" onto every part of science they don't like is very simple. By doing that, they can try and make it look like they're only arguing with one aspect of modern science. However, the reality is that they're really arguing with pretty much
every field within every discipline of modern science but they try and blanket over that and homogenise the issue.
Linear Mode
