What is evolution?

You mean that isn't what horsepower means???! Should I stop putting hay in the fuel tank?TTFN,WK

I'm not sure if you have a point or not, lyx2no's use of the vague term 'becoming' could encompass almost anything from the traditional evolutionary scenario up to multiple rounds of wholesale divine de novo creation. It is a fact that we see changes in the composition of biospheres over time reflected in the geological/fossil record. It is a fact that the progression is as lyx2no states, with unicellular then multicellular then more complex multicellular forms appearing along a specific timeline.Regardless of how the different forms of life got there, evolution or divine creation, it is a fact that they first appear in the geologic record in those specific time frames, unless you want to throw pretty much all modern geology out along with evolutionary theory I'm not sure how you could argue against that.I may be misinterpreting lyx2no, they may be making a much stronger statement about evolutionary history, but just from what was written I don't see it.TTFN,WK

There is a considerable body of scientific literature detailing many hundreds of 'facts' of evolution, many of which are replicable by anyone with a modicum of training. I don't see why we should have to redefine and negotiate all of the terms involved in evolutionary science everytime some new evolution-skeptic who hasn't bothered to familiarise themselves with evolution before deciding to be skeptical shows up.I agree that discussions which get stuck in definitions often get nowhere, but I don't see that insisting that we have just such discussions obviates the problem. Should we really have to educate everyone who comes to the boards with an inadequate understanding of basic evolutionary theory, and often basic biology?Doesn't the fact that these people haven't bothered to familiarise themselves with what evolution actually entails and yet have decided to take up an anti or skeptical position suggest that it is going to be an uphill struggle to have any meaningful debate with them about the scientific evidence, or 'facts' if you will, for evolution?You seem to be calling for an inordinate amount of consensus, isn't there a point where we have to decide that some people are just so far from the centre of the discussion that their views need not be taken to account when reaching a consensus. when we are discussing planetary orbits do we really need to invite the Flat Earthers to the table? Would that tend to make things more or less productive do you imagine?TTFN,WK

Are you just trying to say that you can't understand the scientific literature? There is no endless debating of terms in the peer reviewed literature but plenty of facts.The most common and fundamental 'change' is genetic mutation at the level of single nucleotides.These events are readily observable in the laboratory, as are numerous further levels of genetic change above that of single nucleotides.It is harder to easily demonstrate phenotypic change as the frequency of phenotypic change is considerably lower than that of genetic change, since not all genetic mutations have phenotypic effects. There are still a large number of well documented phenotypic changes in the scientific literature, both from spontaneous mutations and from mutations induced by exposure to environmental factors such as radiation or mutagenic chemicals.Exactly what arbitrary number of observations will you need before 'several turn out to be many as to merit the description of innumerable, as to deserve a theory of evolution', whatever that means.TTFN,WK

What is this word salad meant to mean?TTFN,WK