How do you define the word Evolution?

I've made a summary of all definitions offered so far. For brevity I've edited a few while trying to retain the meaning. If the author thinks I've made a mistake I will revise as necessary. Have I missed any?
=======================================
@Percy 2 (and @deerbreh 3)
Darwin's definition:
The change in species over time due to descent with modification and natural selection.
More modern definition:
The change over time of the genetic makeup of species through natural selection operating on accumulated genetic variation and mutations.@arachnophilia 4
the variation in frequency of heritable features in a population between generations.@AK-7 5
Changes in the makeup of a population through hereditary attributes which allow that population to survive in a given environment.@nwr 7
In a biological context - common descent and change over time between generations.@Minnemooseus 8
Changes in the environment, caused by the interactions of the components of the environment.@Cal 9
Change in a population over time as the result of differential competitive success among imperfect replicators.@bkelly 10
When a descendant's inheritable characteristics differ from those of its parent(s). This includes when a trait changes from dominant to recessive or the reverse.@U can call me Cookie 11
It is change in allele frequencies between successive generations, sometimes leading to phenotypic change. Nb. Natural selection is not the only mechanism (eg. sexual selection, genetic drift also apply).@New Cat's Eye 12
Biological evolution is a change in an allele frequency of a population.@Ben! 13
Evolution is change over time due to some interaction.
In biological evolution, the units of analysis is usually a species, with change due to mutation and the interaction of species with environment which must allow them to continue to reproduce (i.e. natural selection)
But not all biological evolution has these units of analysis, and other things that may usefull be called evolution have different units of analysis.@Lammy 18
Evolution is a drastic physical change in many individuals of a population or species within one or two generations resulting in the birth of a new population or species and the extinction of the parent population or species by some unknown or unidentifiable mechanism.@EZscience 24
Evolution is simply a character change in a population over time.
*Biological* evolution requires that this change have an underlying, heritable (genetic) basis.@dwise 58
Basically, biological evolution is the total sum of what happens when populations of living organisms do what living organisms naturally do.
Consume resources to survive long enough to reproduce.
Produce the next generation who are very similar to the previous generation, yet slightly different.
Those who survive long enough to reproduce then generate the next generation who are very similar to them yet slightly different.
Rinse and repeat ad infinitum.@RAZD 67
The Theory of Evolution (ToE), stated in simple terms, is that the mechanism of anagensis, and the mechanism of cladogenesis, are sufficient to explain the diversity of life as we know it, from the fossil record, from the genetic record, from the historic record, and from everyday record of the life we observe in the world all around us.
anagenesis - The process of lineal change within species is sometimes called phyletic speciation
cladogenesis - involves the division of a parent population into two or more reproductively isolated daughter populations@Dr Adequate 80
Heritable changes in a population.@CRR 87
Evolution is the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself arose naturally from an inorganic form.@Davidjay 97
Luck and Chance@Tangle 101
CHANCE and SELECTION.@Dredge 119
the theory that complex life as we know it today evolved from less complex life - a single-cell organism, to be exact@jar 282
Evolution is simply change over time. The Theory of Evolution is the explanation for the reality of change over time seen.@Pressie 377
After all of this, I gathered that the word evolution means change over time.

It's interesting to note how all the creationists are wrong.

This is a worthy example of an evolutionist gratuitously and misleadingly saturating biology with his favourite word from the atheist-theology lexicon. Can anyone guess what that word is? (Hint: Sesame Street's letter of the day starts with "E")Show an evolutionist a chicken and he sees a feathered dinosaur; show him natural selection and he sees all life evolving from a common ancestor.

Please explain why so much emphasis and seeming importance is placed on a theory that has no use in applied science. Why is said useless theory dogmatically preached at every level of education? Why are any academics, intellectuals and scientists who oppose this useless theory subjected to persecution and ridicule? From the perspective of science, the worship of ToE makes no sense; it only makes sense from the perspective of philosophical-naturalism imperialism (to wit: Atheist totalitarianism). If you bothered to look beyond the myth, you would find that none of the procedures used in applied biology depend on the theory that all life evolved from a common ancestor. You have been conditioned to think that said theory is essential - it isn't; you've heard Dobzhansky's Lie so often that you've never thought to question it - mainly because you've got no reason to question it; you're happy to believe it. The only folks who question it are Creationists ... consequently they can see it for the gigantic con-job that it is.

I am opposed to the theory that all life evolved from a commn ancestor because it 1) is a myth concocted from fake science, 2) it contradicts the Bible, 3) it has hijacked the science of biology and turned it into a propaganda vehicle for atheist theology.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

The theory of evolution is in fact useful in applied science. 'Cos they're ridiculous? That's usually why people are ridiculed. You have never seen it from the perspective of science. This makes you different from scientists, who think that evolution is a good idea and that creationism is a crock of shit.

Except special creation.

Translated from Mad Creationist Gibberish into ordinary speech: this is a worthy example of someone fluent in the English language speaking it. What a bizarre insane lie. Whom do you hope to deceive by telling it?

Please be advised that coming up with stories about how life was invented is nothing more than an historical curiosity. It is irrelevant to applied biology. To drive a car, or to fix or improve a car, I don't need to know the story of how cars came to be invented or how cars evolved from simpler machines to what they are now. All I need is what is there now and how it works. In other words, fossils are useful for embellishing a useless historical curiosity/theory that cannot be verified as fact. Big deal. Empty beer bottles are more useful than fossils.

From the dictionary. But onsecond thoughts, science is too broad a term to be confined to observation and experiment. Consider forensic science, for example, where conclusions can be drawn from observations, after the fact. Sounds like a form of experiment to me.

Which you misunderstood. Yes! Hooray! Nunc dimittis! That would be an exceptionally broad use of the word "experiment". It would, for example cover the following scenario: I hear what sounds like rain; I form the hypothesis that it is raining; I test my hypothesis by looking out of the window.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Agreed - very useful. But I'm not referring to ToE; I'm referring to the dogmatic preaching of the theory that all life evolved from a common ancestor.

Yes, of course, butthe theory that all life evolved from a common ancestor has no use in applied biology. Granted, but ToE is used to conclude that all life evolved from a common ancestor. The two theories have virtually become synonymous; the mentality is, if ToE is true, then so is the theory all life evolved from a common ancestor - which is what Dobzhansky was on about.

Well, my definition is wrong and I have to admit to another mistake: I was under the impression that ToE included the theory that all life evolved from a common ancestor, but half an hour ago I discovered that I was wrong. Oh dear ...

Can't you think of any possible way that the provenance of a car could be of use to a mechanic?Let's give ourselves a practical medical problem. We have a sick llama on our hands, but no vet who has experience with the species. Of the vets available, three are specialists in cows and pigs, one in sheep, one is from South America and has experience with sloths and opossums, and one has worked in the Middle East with camels.I'm the common descent "evolutionist". I have my tree of life before me. I know which one to call. A creationist does not! Would you like to talk us through what you think is insufficient about the current molecular evidence for us to consider all known life forms as having common ancestry to be a fact? New thread? Expensive fossilsEdited by bluegenes, : grammar