That's rather as vague and simplistic a question as "what's the definition of quantum physics", but if you need a beginner's primer, and apparently you do, you can start here, then work your way through these.
I'm glad to see you finally taking an interest in learning about the topic. You probably should have done that before your recent attempts to critique it, though, but it's never too late to catch up.
Be sure you don't oversimplify it when you attempt to talk about it, though; like all sciences it's not a field that can be properly summed up in a single sentence without doing it major injustice (e.g. what's "the definition" of physics: "Things move"?)
According to my Webster's Collegiate dictionary: Phae-drus (fee'druhs, fed'ruhs) n ...
You've got to do a whole lot better than this sort of snideness, hotshot.
[The definition of Evolution is] rather as vague and simplistic a question as "what's the definition of quantum physics", but if you need a beginner's primer ... [link] and [link]
I see. You don't like the question.
Only on rare occassion am I willing to do the Evol Link Chase. I remind you that this "discussion" began when Patrick posted a link purporting to explain to us, in Darwin's inimitable words, the evolution of the eye. This "explanation" was exposed by myself and Gertrude Himmelfarb as bogus, sheer sophistry. It's here, now twice on this thread, for your edification and that of the lurkers. But I can understand why you are unwilling to give us a definition of Evolution. It's rhetoric, not science, and judging by your posts, it's also nastiness at great length.