"So shimrod, on the one hand you have no issue with the definition, and on the other you think it out of date. Apart from the seeming inconsistency , what has changed to make it out of date.?"

For a start, Polly Pete (squawk, squawk) it was you who introduced Kerkut's work into the discussion. Second, books, papers etc. on evolutionary biology are NOT 'holy writ' like the Bible (God didn't chisel them into tablets of stone and hand them to some bearded, bronze age, middle eastern goat herder who could then stumble down the mountainside with them shouting Hosanna!!). The field is continually - well - evolving and older works can easily become out of date. In the last 55 years (an eternity in terms of modern science) there have been HUGE advances in fields as diverse as palaeontology, cell biology and genetics. So here's what I suggest you do, Polly ... err ... Pete: Go back and read Kerkut's book, note the gaps in the 55 year old evolutionary model that he delineates and then check the status of those gaps in the light of recent discoveries; can you do that? Can you do it without parroting stuff from 'Creation.com'? I'm not holding my breath!