[jec41]

Why would a change of eye color, hair color, etc qualify as evolution, especially when it could simply not be a dominent trait in the next generation, and fail to appear again?

You answered your own question.
a:Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.

It is change. There are 6.7 people on earth and no two are alike. They are short, tall, heavy, thin, white, black, yellow, of different hair composition and various other differences. It is the change in genetic composition that causes the difference. Without change everyone would be a perfect clone. There is a slight change with every reproduction. If a trait does not appear in the next generation it is change. If it appears in later generations it is still change.

[xmission]

Guess I'm still confused on why small changes are evolution. If I understand you correctly, then for arguments sake let's say there is a herd of all white horses. One horse is born with a small black spot. It mates, and the spot is not transfered to it's offspring. Is this evolution or just a mutation? I could see your argument if you were saying that mutations are a step that can lead to evolution instead of saying that they are evolution. Am I wrong?