Human evolution from a scientific stantpoint - Scientific debate, not a religious one

This cuts short what he was trying to say in his theory of evolution.. the survival of the fittest. Now I have argued in a somewhat objective manner because of my belief, on this topic in the past.. but I'll try and put that in check for now.... key word: for now
Anyway, Darwin here is trying to give us a fulcrum to which the present species of nowadays exist. There were those that existed in the past that had the same look, genetic code and what have you.. but due to the "natural" things that happen in this earth.. such as attack by preditors, or natural disasters, some have gone exinct.. But to those who have survive, have yielded offsprings whether plants or animals that have been well equiped to withstand the ever changing surroundings they face.. Thus, they are the fittest.. and have survived.

Yes, that's also an example of evolution. That's actually not too different from my moth example. However, in order for the surviving species to evolve, there must already be a genetic variation in the species. For example, the majority were light-colored moths, with the genetic variation being the dark-colored moths (a mutation of the color gene). Then came natural selection (the birds eating the light colored moths), which allowed the dark colored moths to multiply. It was not a gradation from light-to-dark colored moths, because the light colored moths died out. It was the success and survival of the very small group of dark colored moths.

Now to the origin of man. I really enjoyed your theory on the origin of man... Good charts too
But this is what I want to know.. According to science, there is infact no doubt that you are correct.. but tell me something.. if our brains are going to evolve further what do you see the human race turning into 2.5 million years from now... if the sun can still keep its cool till that time?

To tell you the truth, I couldn't even fathom a guess. Why?

1. Unless we develop the technology to terraform and colonize mars and other planets, we will use up all the natural resources, food, oxygen, etc on earth, and die.

2. At the rapid pace of technology, we COULD be able to populate other planets, allowing us time for our mental abilities to evolve. I don't see a PHYSICAL change in the human anatomy, but I believe that human beings will be able to perform at a mental level much more advanced than we are capable of today.

3. 2.5 million years from now, we will most likely have perfected gene therapy. Scientists would be able to alter the genes of humans before birth and be able to FORCE evolution on a controlled scale. For example, we could conaltertrol the genes that control proteins involved with muscle growth in order to breed worker humans, or we could control the genes that affect thinking and brain usage, making more intelligent humans. Either way, I believe that evolution will occur twice: once in order to allow humans a higher level of mental thinking, and second; the evolution that humans force upon themselves via gene therapy.

Call it farfetched, but it's still a guess. No one can see 2.5 million years into the future.

That was Joe's arguement about Viper's theory (or wherever he got it from) on evolution being carried by mutation.. which is in fact true.. but define what you mean by a group. If in fact a group mutates in such a way, that in fact, helps them to survive the seemingly present "forces" that cause them to adapt, where did that group come from. Thus I think Viper may be correct on the mere fact that an individual out of a group starts/mutates/gets the basic trait and then passes this to its offspring. These traits become dormant instead of staying recessive.. and thus a new species is born. Say hello to my little friend!

Evolution can be summed up in, and basically consists of, three steps: Genes mutate. Individuals are selected. Populations evolve. That is the process of Evolution.

Let's go back to the moth example. The evolution of the dark colored moth did NOT begin with just one moth, it began with a group of them. That is what I mean by a group. Let me explain, using the above three sentences as headings...

Genes Mutate
A generation, or rather, a group of moths from the overall moth population, mutates. The gene responsible for colorization mutates, creating a group of dark colored moths. We'll call this group the "mutant" group. So we have a dark-colored mutant group, consisting of the minority (only 2% when first formed), and we have the light-colored group (98% of the english moth population). Thus the first step is complete: the genes have mutated.

Individuals are selected
By this, I mean "natural selection occurs." The soot from the factories during the industrial era covers the trees that the moths frequently land on. As a result, the birds in the area can easily see the light colored moths against a dark background, while the dark colored moths are hidden. Therefore, the light colored moths are devoured, while the dark colored moths are spared. This gives the overall dark colored moth population the chance to increase their population. Thus, the second step is complete: the individuals (the dark moths) have been selected (for evolution).

Populations evolve
Because the dark colored moths have a better survivability rate than the light colored moths, they can successfully breed generation after generation of dark colored moths. Each successive generation carries on the dark-colored traits because the color is affected by the GENE, which has mutated. GENES are passed on from generation to generation. Therefore, over the years, the dark colored moths grew to dominate the population. Thus, the third step is complete: the population has evolved.

That is what I meant by how evolution starts not with an individual, but with a group. The evolution of the english moth did not start with ONE dark colored moth, but with a GROUP of dark colored moths.