Selective breeding is not evolution. First, it's not random and undirected, a requirement for evolution. Second, it creates no new traits. Selective breeding can only select among traits already existing in the genome.
Evolution isn't random and undirected. Random mutation paired with non-random selection results in evolution in the way it is conventionally thought of. Selective breeding changes the populations being selected, so does result in evolution.
An essential aspect of evolution is that it is a random processing, not the result of conscious decisions by another organism.
What you've just described is in no way an essential aspect of evolution. It isn't even part of evolution. If some change in a population is the result of concious (or unconcious) decisions by another organism... evolution has still happened.
There is no requirement for something to be alive for it to evolve.
The requirements for a system to evolve are pretty simple:
1. Some aspect of it must reproduce.
2. During reproduction, a "child" is similar to the "parent".
3. Sometimes traits change randomly.
4. Death happens.
Systems well outside the domain of conventional biology can experience evolution.
E. coli evolved to eat a new chemical (citrate). It developed a new enzyme to do it. E. coli was previously defined as not being able to eat citrate. By the former definition, it has evolved into a new species.
How is antibiotic resistance a loss of function? Troll better, please.
Those statement's don't mean the same thing. For example: consider an experiment where X was expected, however the magnitude of the X effect is unknown, relative to background noise.
Sure they do. For example: consider a paper where the statements do mean the same thing.
You really can't say from the single statement that was described as: "there is simply no way to turn that statement into 'common' English.". The paper would provide the context, in which this simplification would or would not be appropriate. For one paper, the simplifcation would be perfectly fitting. For another paper, a different simplification would be fitting.
The point the AC seemed to be making was that it is rather silly to say that something technical cannot be simplified.
Every human being on the planet is more attracted to light colored hair than dark because, evolution-wise, it indicates being younger and thus more likely to have a healthy baby in theory.
This appears to be a pretty dramatically unfounded statement. I would be interested in your evidence for this claim, however.
I've got a bad feeling about this.