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.

Thread copied here from the Who Owns the Standard Definition of Evolution thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.

The most widely accepted definition of evolution among scientists is the gradual change in heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations, driven by natural selection, genetic drift, mutation, and gene flow. It is the process by which species adapt to their environments and diverge from common ancestors over time.The general public's understanding of evolution can vary, but a commonly accepted definition is the idea that species change over time through a process of natural selection, leading to the development of new species from ancestral ones.However, there are also varying degrees of acceptance and understanding among different segments of the population, with some holding alternative beliefs or misconceptions about the concept.There you go. Took about a minute. Thanks Chat GPT.

Are we going to have some troll time now?

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.

Abiogenesis isn't part of the theory of evolution. This is a possible implication but not part of the theory itself. Increasing complexity is a possible outcome of evolutionary forces like competition and differential reproductive success but is not part of the theory itself. Close enough. All life is a product of evolution. "Highest life form" isn't a scientific term, but it would be accurate to say that humans are an extremely successful species that inhabits a very broad range of environments. Yes.--Percy

Ah, sorry, you're in the wrong shop, try next door.

People get confused about the meaning of “random” in this context. We had one poster here who got it wrong and accused scientists of gross dishonesty over it. (Creationists love accusing others and hate admitting fault). There are biases in the process and some people think that means “non-random” (although that’s wrong too).Undirected is better. Maybe it needs expanding to deal with complications - but then you get into explaining stuff like the SOS response

​You are unlikely to get that.I'll give my personal comments. Others may have different points of disagreement.1. Evolution and Origin of life are to separate things. There could have been origin of life without evolution. Or life might have always existed in some form. It is generally agreed that origin of life has not been explained.2. Again, this is too simplistic. We do not have a good definition of what we mean by "life".It is conceivable that it all started with some chemical reactions that we would not consider to be life, but might have been a precursor to life. Precursors to life could have originated multiple times, and what see as life today could result from several different precursors.3. We don't have a good definition of "more complex".4. It isn't clear what "inferior" means here. Whether a mutation is beneficial depends on the environment. A succession of changes in the environment may have been an important driver of evolution.5. Again, we have a difficulty with "complex". And we have a difficulty with "highest life form". It is not clear what those terms would mean.6. Hooray -- I can agree with this one.

I'm staking a claim to the Standard Definition of Evolution (copyright pending). Nobody else has. It's mine.Every time a creationist uses the term, i.e., abuses it, ka-ching!Where reason fails, pain might work.

I have always liked RAZD's definitions of evolution. Message 7

RAZD:

---

The process of evolution involves changes in the composition of hereditary traits, and changes to the frequency of their distributions within breeding populations from generation to generation, in response to ecological challenges and opportunities.

---

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.?

No. There is a very consistent set of definitions across the discipline but no one definition is cut into the marble and etched in gold.Read Ernst W. Mayr. Learn that name. He has defined evolution many times in many ways. Why? You looking for something to rant and rail against? As you can see from the responses your understanding leaves a lot still to be learned. Understanding evolution at anything but the pop-culture soundbite level takes years of study. Takes a lot of work to understand the numerous processes involved in biological evolution. Most on here have been at this for decades.What do you hope to learn, find, achieve with this question? How can we help?

Why does it seem there should be, to you? Can you point to a single "accepted authority" on the other major scientific fields? Why should there be one for biology? Many universities offer series of courses that cover biological evolution and there have been many textbooks written on the subject.You want a few simple sentences to define one of the most complex processes in nature. How would a more detailed, simpler definition be more useful than those already provided? It's interesting that biologist seem to be able to communicate just fine using the definitions we already have and are not clambering for "better definitions."

Wrong