here is an interesting piece I read awhile ago so I logged it ..
As an evolutionary biologist, it is very important to me to have a rigorous definition of “evolution.” The word “evolution” ultimately derives from the Latin verb “evolvere,” which means “to roll out” and referred to the reading of scrolls. In colloquial English, “evolution” refers to “progressive change.” This is what we mean when we talk about “the evolution of politics,” “the evolution of the media,” “the evolution of military power,” “the evolution of stars,” etc.
Now “progressive change” is of course the original meaning of “evolution” and is why development was the first process in biology to be called “evolution.” It is also the reason why “evolution” was later applied to the origin of species. At that point biologists considered the origin of species to be a progressive process where “lower” species changed into “higher” species.
When biologists realized that the origin of species was not a progressive process, they still kept the term “evolution” to refer to the origin of species. Instead of coining new terminology, they kept the old terminology but changed its meaning, dropping the connotation of “progression.” As a result, the biological meaning of “evolution” diverged from the colloquial meaning of “evolution.”
There simply are no common processes between the origin of life and the diversification of life. No single explanation will cover both. (I am using “life” here in a broad sense: imperfect replicators.)
http://dererumnatura.us/archives/2004/11/what-is-evoluti-1.html
AND BECAUSE ADAPTATION, MUTATION, OR GENETIC DRIFT HAVE "NEVER" BEEN PROVEN TO RESULT IN ANOTHER SPECIE .. MICRO-EVOLUTION ALSO IS A DISINGENUOUS TERM THAT THEY "CANNOT" LINK TO THE DISINGENUOUS TERM OF EVOLUTION