Hi Toni , thanks for your answer .
There was a wider discussion at
I consider I have strong reasons for defending the definition I
proposed , but I've also learnt that it is useless I try to explain
those reasons .
As you can see at
, I finally concluded it could be useful to consider a double-sensed
definition of Evolution :
- - Evolution , in the sense of biological capacity itself of living
organisms for transforming , varying or mutating , maybe in some cases
due to external factors but in general regardless environmental
conditions . Or evolution in the sense of biological capacity itself
for assuming mutations of transformations , independently of the
relation between these transformations and environmental conditions .
( Or , in short , evolution as the capacity of mutating itself , not
regarding environmental conditions ) .
- - And Evolution , in the sense of living organisms' transformation ,
change or mutation for (re)adapting to new environmental conditions
( evolution regarding environmental conditions ; this would be rather
the classic sense ) .
The first one of these two senses tends to evoke a short-term
evolution ( for example from parents to offspring , or from one
generation to another ) , while the second sense tends to evoke a long-
term evolution ( for example , from fishes to reptiles ) .
I'll finally add that , in my opinion , biological variability has a
clear relation to environmental variability .
And NO , I can't accept in any way the handling of the concept of
heritability , because it relies on the concept of reproduction ( exo-
reproduction ) , and it does not consider at all the mutation and
evolution of simple forms of life by means of endogenous ( metabolic )
regeneration ( that is , without exogenous separated rebuilding ) .