Who Owns the Standard Definition of Evolution

Can anyone provide a concise definition of Evolution, one that would find concurrence amongst most/all serious evolutionists, and one against which all descriptions of Evolution should be calibrated? "Natural selection" and "survival of the fittest" are woefully lacking, of course, and explanations of evolution that require an essay or a book lose focus of the fundamental mechanics of evolution. Two or three sentences, perhaps a paragraph, should be enough to provide an overall but thorough definition.I suspect that the everyday layman's nebulous understanding of Evolution can be summed up by Zallinger's "March of Progress", sadly, and until there is a standard definition to which all can refer the Evolution debate will meander pointlessly.

Thank you, Tangle.I won't disagree with your first couple of sentences, but I'm looking for a more technically-based definition. Something like:1. The first life form sprang forth from non-living matter.
2. All life-forms have developed from this first life form.
3. Successive, more complex life forms developed over great periods of time due to random, non-directed mutations.
4. Inferior mutations disappeared due to the observable process of natural selection, or survival-of-the-fittest, while the more robust mutations continued evolving.
5. The succession of ever-more complex, adaptable mutations has thus far resulted in the highest life form, modern man.
6. Evolution continues today.This is my own hi-level understanding of Evolution. I welcome any corrections/improvements.

Thank you all for your input.We could conceivably define Evolution by agreeing on all of the things that Evolution is not, but it seems there should be a readily available concise definition. Maybe one that is maintained by some accepted authority on Evolution?Is there such an authority? I suppose there will always be disagreement on some of the finer details, but to whom/what can we appeal to reconcile some of the more fundamental aspects of Evolution, e.g., what is random/complex/inferior/life/etc.?

Hello AZPaul3 - Not so much to rant and rail against, but something against which to debate.In the Science discipline a Theory is a hypothesis for which an experiment - or method of falsification - can be devised and applied repeatedly and consistently. If the experiment fails to falsify the hypothesis, then you have demonstrated that the hypothesis holds true in that set of circumstances/conditions. If Theory fails to hold true under any one set of conditions/circumstances, then the theory is either mis-constructed, or simply false.In my experience, Evolution as a hypothesis does not rise to the level of Theory due to its un-testability. I'm interested in an observable experiment that can be applied to any of Evolution's key principles. If one is out there then I am all ears.Incidentally, one expert (Mr. Mayr) defining Evolution many times in many ways is a nullification of rather than an endorsement of Evolution as a coherent hypothesis.

Helo Theodoric - How do you define theory?

Hello Tanypteryx - Evolution is not so complex that we can't address some of its key principles in detail. For example: The mutation into a superior, more complex, or wholly different life form that manages to exist and procreate and evolve further. Do we understand this process well enough to define it, is re-creatable, or at least observable?

Theories must be substantiated with tested and verified data. If descent with modification is the simple rule, how is this rule substantiated? Has this process been observed and recorded? Can this process be re-created? Alternately, what data confirms this process?I have seen a great deal of supporting data for this Evolution process, all of it pictures and explanations, and none of it the type of hard, repeatable data demanded by the Scientific Method.

"Overwhelming preponderance of evidence" is what I hear quite often. And if there is such a preponderance then there must be at least one clear, demonstrative example that even the most ignorant of laymen can understand. Do you know of such an example?And a roomful of scientists nodding their heads in unison does not make something factual. Especially if they are all in pursuit of the same goal. That's what makes the Scientific Method so critical - If you are drawing conclusions from a pile of data you must now prove those conclusions with repeatable testing. Otherwise you are simply advancing an explanation.

Genetically modified corn is still corn. Just forced through the process of natural selection. No evolution here.

Please see Message 5!

Here are some:<link removed>
<link removed>
<link removed>
<link removed>
<link removed>

Here are some:http//stonesnbones.blogspot.com/2009/03/emergence-of-new-species.html
https//evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evograms_03
https//web.neomed.edu/web/anatomy/Thewissen/whale_origins/index.html
http//www-personal.umich.edu/~gingeric/PDGwhales/Whales.htm
https//<link removed>

Here are some:Stones and Bones: Emergence of New Species
The evolution of whales - Understanding Evolution
Whale Origins
Philip D. Gingerich

You'll have to add a colon after the http or https to get these to work. It's the only way the links would submit.

But still corn. We haven't turned it into a different lifeform. In fact, these forced mutations would argue against naturalistic evolution and point to intelligent design!Additionally, we can breed animals to favor the development of certain traits - we have demonstrated this aspect of natural selection ad infinitum. But if we get too carried away and cross a horse with a donkey we get a non-procreating mule - also arguing against the sustainability of mutations needed to support naturalistic evolution.