They are using the non-standard definition of "evolution". To them, evolution means characterization. In other words, when they say, "evolution" they really mean "characterization", or "working out", or the "process of developing". They are using an alternative definition for a common word. I've learned that modelers do that a lot, which mirrors the habit of abstracting understanding in strange, uncommon ways, which obviously leads to further miscommunication and confusion.

As I understand it, and inside of GTSM, evolution is accounted for with a more standard definition of evolution, which is a process of change in a certain direction.

As in the fourth paper, they are not referring to "Thermal Evolution" as in the paper with which I reference thermal properties of the star changing as it cools and dies as outlined in "The Principle of Heat Evolution" in this paper:
"The Principle of Heat Evolution in Stellar Metamorphosis"
Which states an actual direction for the heat evolution.

When they are saying "Thermal Evolution", they are saying "thermal characteristics", so that they can model the current state of the object. I have read the paper, nothing actually mentions what will HAPPEN to the objects, they only state what they currently look like. Remember, going out on a limb (stepping out of bounds with the paradigm), which is what I'm doing. They can only interpret the data collected by their instruments inside of the paradigm, I on the other hand, can interpret the data outside of the paradigm.

Another very big clue is hiding in plain site concerning their wording of the issues. In the first paper's introduction they state, "In order to understand the formation of giant planets, and hence, the formation of planetary systems..."

That right there expresses a distinct assumption. You have to learn what to look for. Firstly they believe the formation of giant planets happens, meaning the objects they observe, the "giant planets" form AS IS. The assumption is that there is no evolution TO their current characteristics or state. That being said, it is indicative of them accepting the idea that nothing else could have happened between initial formation and their current state. They have accepted assumptions which block any consideration of alternatives. Therefore the very idea that Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune or Uranus could have at one point been MUCH LARGER and hotter completely escapes them, as they formed "as is". The absurdity of the "as is" argument can be given analogy as well. Just imagine a used car on a car lot. The seller will sell you that car based off the presumption that you will accept it "as is". That being said, you intuitively know that if there is an "as is" condition that the car was USED by someone else and has a much deeper history. As well, was manufactured at one point very early on. So in other words, the car being "as is" means it has a much longer history. It didn't just appear there out of the aether. Same with Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune and Uranus. The scientists accept them "as is" but that neglects their rich background. They neglect their history because that has a lot attached to it. Remember, deciphering the huge spider web of assumptions comes attached to seeing how bad establishment has misinterpreted the data. Which brings me to my next point.

The forth paper also uses the phrasing, "parent star". This is very bad for them, great for me! It shows that they still accept the notion that gas giants did not evolve greatly to their current configuration, casting doubt into their acceptance of planets having evolved, as outlined in this paper: The Principle of Planet Formation

It means they still accept planets as by-products of star formation. This is false. Planets are evolved stars. Therefore, any talk of planetary evolution without referencing earlier bouts of evolution is misguided at best. Which is why I'm referencing this. Imagine a line graph. You have the negative numbers on one side, the positives on the other. The whole argument I'm seeing is that astronomers accept planets as being on the zero on the line graph. They formed as they are and will remain so, so that the models remain static for equations and computer programs can work easier.

They do not move the planets down the positive end of the graph, Jupiters becoming Neptunes for instance, nor do they examine the negative numbers on the graph, where the Jupiters were brown dwarfs/red dwarfs and even Sun like stars. As well as Neptunes having been Jupiter type stars.

They will not accept planetary evolution because it has a huge domino effect on all their other assumptions. This understand is so far beyond what they accept that it is now impossible to do astronomy without it. Nothing they observe concerning "exoplanets" can be explained by their paradigm. All the counterinstances are piling up and the more data they collect the worse it will become until they realize stellar evolution IS planet formation.