Darwin defined “evolution as “descent with modification”. But modification of what? The messy mix of DNA in sexual reproduction is not modification of anything. Two become three in sexual reproduction while one becomes two in mitosis and budding. No parent is being modified. Either way, descent by definition is the creation of new entities. Modification by definition is the same one entity before and after. The combination “descent with modification” is simply incoherent. Is this just an unfortunate linguistic error that hides a real process? Could this apply to populations instead? Populations change, but they do not descend – just individual members do. OK then, “descent with modification” is just a pleasant but otherwise incoherent soundbite. So what? That is not right either. Population changes happen – everyone and their dog knows that. Yet that is not a substitute for “evolution” which claims much more. The essence of “evolution” are extreme claims like “fishes turn into reptiles”, “reptiles into birds” and “monkeys into humans” among many others. These claims go well beyond ‘populations may change’. Can we confirm any of those? Of course not. Temporary, limited, reversible and inconsequential changes do not qualify as “evolution”. Substituting one for the other is simply swindling – the modus operandi in “evolution”. Still, let us be as accommodative as possible and ask the internet oracle for examples of “descent with modification”. Maybe there is something to it despite all logic and observations. Nothing. Just examples of change that do not go as far as “evolution” (Galapagos finches), groupings of fossils that cannot be confirmed to be related, adaptations that are supposed to represent “evolution” (another trick) and reiterations of the dogma. In conclusion, “descent with modification” is at best a pretentious way of saying ‘populations change’ which is trivial and not enough to affirm “evolution”. A trickster like Darwin should have lost right there and then all credibility.