Yes, that is much better. Yes I did provide my definition of nature and it has never changed. And you agreed with my definition of nature. Did you already forget that? It was just the other day. Do you have memory issues?1) Have you decided what definition of "nature" you're using?
2) Of course Man is affecting his environment.
3) I know of NO evolutionary changes to any species in response to human activities. There was a moth in Great Britain that was believed to have turned from white to black in response to coal soot, but that turned out not to be true. Several species have experieneced behavioral changes in response to human incursions into their habitats: pigeons, coyotes, rats, polar bears, etc; but no mutations. The pace of human effects is far, far too rapid to allow evolutionary adaptaation. Even the megafauna of North American 13,000 years ago couldn't keep up with ugly little hominids walking over the Bering Land Bridge.
4) Mass extinctions are not the least bit Darwinian. No mutations have taken place. Nor more suitable species has arisen. Humans have not benefitted from the disappearance of any of the thousands of species we've driven out of existence.
5) Whether or not man may be considered an event is purely up to one's viewpoint. From the viewpoint of an archeologist a million years in the future looking at the stratigraphic record, man would be as much an event as the KT impact, the End Perman Extinction or any of the rest. Environment is a extremely important component to evolution. That is why we have no polar bears in tropical rainforests or howler monkeys at the South Pole.
You don't actually know diddly squat about evolution. You really ought to bone up before you embarrass yourself further.
Is that better?
Great. So we agree that man is affecting his environment. Now if you will only recognize that extinctions due to man affecting the environment is literally evolution as those species died out because they were unable to adapt to their environment, then we will be on the same page with that as well.
I'm not sure how you can say you know of NO evolutionary changes to any species in response to human activities if you believe that species going extinct are due man's influence on the environment. Because those species failure to adapt to those changes is what led to their extinction and that is literally evolution.
Mass extinctions are most definitely Darwinian in that species that fail to adapt to their changing environment die. How is that not Darwinian?
Apparently I know more about evolution than you do because I understand that species going extinct is an integral part of evolution because they fail to adapt to their environment. Apparently you believe it is only evolution if they survive their changing environment but that just isn't the case.