How do you define the word Evolution?

No, the idea for lighter-than-air flight did not come from birds. There are no birds filled with hydrogen. (I was really hoping somebody would give an example of lighter-than-air flight in nature. )

I think this owl might have the answer:

Politicians.They are full of hot air and seldom are grounded in reality, but float in a bubble world of their own making.

You are doing your best to deny the escapable conclusion that evolution is not evidence of evolution, but your efforts are in vain.------------------------------Darwinist flourished before genetics came on the scene.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

Bubbles are an idea from nature than might inspired flight via balloons. Or maybe even clouds. But this discussion is teetering on the inane.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

It's been inane ever since somebody suggested that intelligent design is a rational idea.

I have stated over and over that a nested hierarchy is evidence of evolution. Perhaps you should read my actual posts.

(the existence of) A is not evidence for (the existence of) A.Fascinating.

I'm going to change my previous answer to this question. I made the mistake of giving a definition for the Theory of Evolution rather than the WORD Evolution.The word can at its most basic mean "change over time" but since this thread is within the Biological Evolution Forum I will take that as the context. Definition: [Biological] Evolution is a heritable change in a population over time.Note: This is not a definition of theDarkRed Theory of Evolution for which see my definition in
EvC Forum: How do you define the Theory of Evolution?But here's a thought. Epigenetic changes are heritable in some cases but do not change the DNA. Should these be considered evolution?

Since it is macroevolution that is at dispute in most conversations we should not include epigenetics since they produce very limited changes that disappear after a handful of generations. Epigenetics simply can't explain the differences we see between divergent species so it is a non-factor when discussing macroevolution.

The we'll need to define macroevolution ... because you can bet some creationists get it wrong.eg -- what does "evolution above the species level" mean ...EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : .

Well that's something at least. Perhaps not all 800 or so posts have been a total waste.

In my experience, humans and chimps evolving from a common ancestor is usually accepted by most creationists as an example of macroevolution.

Because Humans are of one "kind" and apes from another ... so that type of evolution does not occur in their paradigm.Certainly it is according to scientific usage ...

quote:

---

(Berkeley): An introduction to evolution

​

... and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations).

​

Over a large number of years, evolution produces tremendous diversity in forms of life.

​

Through the process of descent with modification, the common ancestor of life on Earth gave rise to the fantastic diversity that we see documented in the fossil record and around us today. Evolution means that we're all distant cousins: humans and oak trees, hummingbirds and whales.

---

quote:

---

(UMich): The Process of Speciation

​

• Definition 2:

​

The gradual change of living things from one form into another over the course of time, the origin of species and lineages by descent of living forms from ancestral forms, and the generation of diversity

​

... The second definition emphasizes the appearance of new, physically distinct life forms that can be grouped with similar appearing life forms in a taxonomic hierarchy. It commonly is referred to as macroevolution.

---

Note that both these definitions say that the evolution is still within the breeding population and that what makes it macroevolution is the accumulation of microevolutionary changes over many generations.What we do NOT have is some mysterious morphing into a new and different species or a new and different "kind"by some unidentified process.Enjoy

As you said "There is no single "official" definition [of the TOE (scientific version).]" Neither is there any single "official" definition of micro or macroevolution.Kirk Durston at least tried to provide precise definitions but those have been rejected by many here. Don't expect your definition to get universal acceptance.At least Durston's definitions could be applied to a speciation event, where genomes can be compared, to decide whether it was microevolution or macroevolution. Perhaps under Durston's definitions the Peppered Moth would be a case of macroevolution but I'm not aware that anyone has actually looked at it in this way (although AFAIK that produced only different varieties and not separate species).Edited by CRR, : Subtitle amended.