How do you define the word Evolution?

Darwinsim IS the theory of common descent. Variation, adaptation, and natural selection all were recognised before Charles Darwin. So was the Tree of Life. What Darwin did was use the former to explain the latter.

Darwin was arguing for descent from one or a few original forms. Darwin of course knew nothing of the genetic code. Since then we have discovered the genetic code and that it is universal with only minor variations. Hence most evolutionists today believe there was a universal common ancestor.So I would say that today universal common descent IS an important part of the theory

This is thread is for definitions of Evolution. You don't need to argue about whether it is a valid theory or not.Evolution is the official personal information manager for GNOME. It combines e-mail, address book, calendar, task list and note-taking features. Its user interface and functionality is similar to Microsoft Outlook. Evolution is free software licensed under the terms of the GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL). Edited by CRR, : General edit.

Intelligent design proponent David Klinghoffer (2016) claims that intelligent design is a theory of evolution, seeking to explain why biological diversity flowers and grows in the manner it does. It’s just not Darwin’s theory of evolution.

How much change are we talking about in "A Smooth Fossil Transition: Pelycodus, a primate"
Evolutionists generally believe that all domestic dogs are descended from wolves. Domestic dogs can range in size from the Chihuahua to the Great Dane. To get comparable scales we compare on the horizontal axis log10(Weight^.667), getting weights from Wikipedia. Plotting these over the Pelycodus chart we get. Now we can see that the change in Pelycodus is really quite small. What's more we don't know if Notharctus nunienus and Notharctus venticolus are actually different species or just varieties. We are not in a position to try hybridization between the two.Anyway as I have said before adaptation and even speciation is not a real concern for YECs like myself.

If you think it is substantially correct then go ahead. Even with artificial insemination I have read that a Chihuahua mother will spontaneously abort. However they are considered the same species.
Why are different breeds of dogs all considered the same species ... Why are different breeds of dogs all considered the same species? - Scientific American Fertile hybrids are known although rare. Similarly we occasionally get fertile hybrids between tigers and lions. Among dogs wolf-coyote-domestic dog hybrids have been reported. Yes. This is considered macroevolution in some definitions but not others.

Dr Ad: Your link doesn't work, can you fix it? Thanks.
CRR: Works on my PC Why are different breeds of dogs all considered the same species? - Scientific American

Have we actually made much progress in defining the word Evolution?Obviously the word itself has a range of meanings depending on the context. Such as;
Evolution of the universe
Evolution of the motor car
Evolution in population genetics
As shorthand for the Theory of Evolution
Microevolution
MacroevolutionWithin biology the only one that seems to have a reasonably precise definition is within population genetics where it means "a change in allele frequency in a population over time". As Endor notes this is close to, but not quite the same as, microevolution. However it does not correspond to evolution used as shorthand for the Theory of Evolution. As a result the word can be ambiguous and interpreted differently by different people.

I can't find your definition of evolution. Have you given one? As you say you'll probably need to spend a bit of space defining the terms.

Precisely the problem! There are multiple definitions and when examined they often refer to different types of "evolution".I see in Message 568 you give 4 definitions and you say they are all different ways of saying the same thing, but there are differences. I'll skip over #1.
#2 gives the population genetics definition which says nothing about any gain of novel genes or features, or any idea of every living thing coming from one or a few ancestors.
#3 is reduced to simple change over time, including "galaxies, languages, and political systems".
#4 finally covers the Theory of Evolution in the broad sense including common ancestry, " from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions."So you have actually confirmed the problem. There are multiple definitions. This is fine if the sender and receiver are both using the word evolution in the same sense but can cause confusion if they are using it in different senses. For instance evolution of galaxies requires no change in allele frequencies. Change in allele frequencies does not necessarily result in common ancestry.[edit] I see in Message 545 that you say "No one disagrees that LUCA is part of evolutionary theory.", yet there are others in this thread who clearly do not agree with that. Edited by CRR, : LUCA added

That's a good reply.You apparently distinguish between evolution as used for (i)the science of evolution, (ii)the process of evolution, and (iii) the theory of evolution. Is that right?E,g. I study the science of evolution, I have observed the process of evolution, and believe (or accept) the theory of evolution to be true. (Note. I don't accept the definition that says belief is in the absence or despite the evidence. You can believe based on the evidence.)
Unfortunately that can also be phrased as; I study evolution(i), I have observed evolution(ii), and believe evolution(iii) to be true; which can lead to equivocation.Your definition then refers only to (ii) the process of evolution leaving (i) and (ii) undefined. I think (i) is pretty straightforward but I'd like to see your definition of (iii). a) By "changes in the composition of hereditary traits" are you referring to mutations that produce new variations in the phenotype by new variations in the genome?
b) Neutral theory suggests much of the change in composition and frequency is due to genetic drift rather than being in response to anything? Do you want to cover that? Possibly not; there comes a point in interests of brevity minor points should be omitted from the definition and discussed in accompanying material.

You're right. I have in other places made that point myself.

I think I can go with that.
from the fossil record, as mostly laid down during Noah's Flood,
from the genetic record, showing the common designer of all living things,
from the historic record, as recorded in Genesis,
and from everyday record of the life we observe, descent with modification within the created kinds.

Taq, as I have shown in other posts there ARE criteria for identifying the bounds of the Kinds.

Likewise I don't doubt the ability of evolution to produce multiple species within each created kind, and since humans are a separate creation from the apes then humans don't share a common ancestor with chimps.