And if we're speaking in biological terms, an insinuation of "progress" would be wrong. Why would you begin a discussion on a nuanced topic with only the information you can gather from a single dictionary definition?

Let's not forget that dictionaries also contain colloquial uses of a word, which makes them even less suited to a scientific discussion.

It's fine if someone's understanding comes from a dictionary definition that's ok. They just need to be open to a further refining of the term from people who do know.

If the majority of people in this discussion are wondering if adaptation takes place within the human population the answer is easy. Yes. Yes it does.

What do you mean by null point? Will we stop evolving? No. We will not stop evolving.

It seems like these questions are arising from a fundamental misunderstanding of evolution. And our understanding of a topic begins at the definition. Which is why it's important if we are having a nuanced discussion of evolution within a scientific context to operate with a definition of Evolution in a pure scientific context.

If we begin with a false or misleading definition of Evolution, we're a whole lot less likely to lead to a reasonable conclusion. If our basic understanding of the topic is muddled it doesn't make much sense to have a nuanced discussion about it.

On that note, if people want a great read about Evolution, I suggest "The Greatest Show on Earth" by Richard Dawkins. Easy to read (as in no scientific jargon, no science degree required to enjoy) and contains a lot of great examples from the natural world and scientific studies done to illustrate his points.

The Greatest Show on Earth is a fantastic starting point to understand the process of evolution. And he doesn't come off as a smarmy asshole in the book, even in the chapter he devotes to Intelligent Design. Spoiler Alert- He does not believe in Intelligent Design.