During an on-going trial a witness is brought in who has the qualifications and credibility to define the major premise of the defense. The witness brings to the court the definition of the identity of the key stone that locks all other propositions into the argument. The keystone becomes the title and subject heading of said argument. What would be the consequences of changing the meaning of any premise in the syllogism after the testimony was given? Would the keystone definition maintain the original value if a premise could be radically altered?

Who in this particular scientific community does the apologizing for obvious change of the definition of the word evolution?
Obviously, the parameters of time have been changed from very long periods of time and slow processes for change to take place, to very short periods of time and rapid processes for change to take place. If the definition to evolution is "change overtime," then I must agree. However, all of us who have been observing the new facts being brought to the information collective must agree that a little slight of hand
has been in play concerning the term evolution. It seems the word itself has been evolving, not from the expansion of proper syllogism but from the removal of an invalid premise which in itself is really the creation of a new theory. So, why the big hush? Perhaps, the public will not notice those who have been in error and have recently changed their testimonies. Perhaps perjury is only limited to the justice system and has no scientific value. Perhaps an institution's credibility is directly related to its power, and slight of hand is a necessary evil for preservation of dominance.