[xmission]

A specific allele needs to become fixed or at least on its way to becoming fixed before the population is considered to be evolving.

Sounds like we are on the same page. I was questioning a post that said basically that the changes in how you look and how your children look is evolution. Maybe I don't understand your point?

[b_sharp]

"Sounds like we are on the same page. I was questioning a post that said basically that the changes in how you look and how your children look is evolution. Maybe I don't understand your point?

No, I don't think you missed the point. The problem is in the recognition of the point where the change is not just a few individuals but the population as a whole.

There is a caveat to that though, there are times when small subpopulations start restricting who they interbreed with and can end up evolving in a different direction and at a different rate than the larger population.

[b_sharp]

Darn, forgot to address this point.

"I was questioning a post that said basically that the changes in how you look and how your children look is evolution.

This is true in a sense. 'Descent with modification' has been used and is a valid way to describe evolution and is easily observed in a single generation of a single family; but if it only happens in that single family it should not correctly be called 'Evolution'.

This is usually given as a simple example rather than a real definition of evolution. I believe this was the intention of the poster you responded to.