Let me try one more time to make the point.
You have every right to criticize a textbook for poorly worded questions.
But if you want that criticism to be taken serously, you must demonstrate
that you wish to rise above the book's shortcomings that you cite. So, how
do you, in your own commentary, deal with the two concerns I had?
>1. You made no distinction between: 1) the net effect of "evolution" as an
>ensemble of diverse processes and events, and 2) the outcome of individual
>events within an evolutionary context.
>
>2. You seemed also to treat "evolutionary theory" as if it were some
single
>monolithic statement that could be subjected to simple little questions
>like, "So just what does evolutionary theory recognize that evolution
does,
>anyway?"
>
Howard Van Till