Who Owns the Standard Definition of Evolution

Are we going to have some troll time now?

Wrong

If you want to have a conversation about science, you need to understand the meaning if scientific terms. Learn what a Theory actually is. Or crawl back under your rock.

How about you tell us how you define it as you are using it incorrectly. If you tell us what you think it is we can correct you.Hypothesis, theory, law - Google Docs

Evolution does not aspire to superior, higher level life form. Humans are not the highest level of evolution. There is no apex of evolution.

Irrelevant. You do not know what a scientific theory is. If you did you would define it as asked.
Just a troll.

Probably about the same time he tells us how he defines scientific theory

Evidently you are incapable of reading with comprehension. Le's try again. Do you disagree with this?

quote:

---

The Scientific Meaning of the Terms
People working outside of science often misinterpret the language used by scientists. And for that reason, they sometimes draw the wrong conclusions as to what the scientific terms mean.
Three such terms that are often used interchangeably are "scientific law," "hypothesis," and "theory."
Outside the science community , if something is said to be “just a theory,” it usually means that it is a mere guess, or is unproved. It might even lack credibility. But in scientific terms, a theory is an explanation of a phenomenon that is generally accepted as being true because it is based on large amounts of empirical evidence.
Here is what each of these terms means to a scientist:
Scientific Law: This is a statement of fact meant to describe, in concise terms, an action or set of actions. It is generally accepted to be true and universal, and can sometimes be expressed in terms of a single mathematical equation. Scientific laws are are accepted at face value based upon the fact that they have always been observed to be true.
Specifically, scientific laws must be simple, true, universal, and absolute. They represent the cornerstone of scientific discovery, because if a law ever did not apply, then all science based upon that law would collapse.
Some scientific laws, or laws of nature, include the law of gravity, Newton's laws of motion, the laws of thermodynamics, Boyle's law of gases, the law of conservation of mass and energy, and Hook’s law of elasticity.
Hypothesis: This is a prediction based upon observation. It is a rational explanation of a single event or phenomenon based upon what is observed, but which has not been proved. Most hypotheses can be supported or refuted by experimentation or continued observation.
Theory: A theory is what one or more hypotheses become once they have been verified and accepted to be true. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon tested hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. Unfortunately, even some scientists often use the term "theory" in a more colloquial sense, when they really mean to say "hypothesis." That makes its true meaning in science even more confusing to the general public.
WHAT’S THE DIFFERENCE?
In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology.
The biggest difference between a law and a theory is that a theory is much more complex and dynamic. A law describes a single action, whereas a theory explains an entire group of related phenomena. And, whereas a law is a foundation of the scientific method, a theory is the end result of that same process.
A simple analogy can be made using a slingshot and an automobile.
A scientific law is like a slingshot. A slingshot has but one moving part--the rubber band. If you put a rock in it and draw it back, the rock will fly out at a predictable speed, depending upon the distance the band is drawn back.
An automobile has many moving parts, all working in unison to perform the chore of transporting someone from one point to another point. An automobile is a complex piece of machinery. Sometimes, improvements are made to one or more component parts. A new set of spark plugs that are composed of a better alloy that can withstand heat better, for example, might replace the existing set. But the function of the automobile as a whole remains unchanged.
A theory is like the automobile. Components of it can be changed or improved upon, without changing the overall truth of the theory as a whole.
Some scientific theories include the continental drift theory, the theory of relativity, the atomic theory, and the quantum theory. All of these theories have been tested and verified and are generally accepted by scientists beyond reasonable doubt. Yet scientists continue to tinker with the component hypotheses of each theory in an attempt to make them more elegant and concise, or to make them more all-encompassing. Theories can be tweaked, but they are seldom, if ever, entirely replaced.
A theory is developed only through the scientific method, meaning it is the final result of a series of rigorous processes. Note that theories do not become laws. Scientific laws must exist prior to the start of using the scientific method because, as stated earlier, laws are the foundation for all science.

---

Hypothesis, theory, law - Google Docs

Wrong. A hypothesis does not grow up to be a theory. A theory is an explanation of the scientific facts that testing a hypothesis shows. So you disagree with the definition of a scientific theory. That is a problem. For you. Discussion with you is a waste of time until you understand what a scientific theory is.

Look up Teosinte.

you are a transitional life form. Unless you are a clone.

The definition has been presented. You just don't like it. Are you a pastor? Or you getting credit at Bible College for trolling the "godless evolutionists"

Wrong. Evolution is tested ever day. Every time an organism procreates the TOE us more evidenced.
Do you have parent? If so, you are evidence for evolution.

personal incredulity is not evidence, it is evidence of the lack of critical thinking. Can you name any biologists who agree with you? What is your background in science?

Lol. Just posted that. Or a Pastor looking to affirm his hates and biases.