Lol I lived 2 years in alabama, since 5 to 7, where I learned to speak english, thank god I didnt get the accent, I hate it xD.

Everyone thinks i'm from New York because i have no accent! My sister has the most southern accent though. She's always like,"why ya talkin so funne?" and i'm like, "Have you ever thought that you were the one that sounds funny?" and she'll respond with, "Mom and Daddy don't talk that way, so it must be normal."

i give up....

USA - Intelligent Design.

First of all, evolution is as linear as we want it to be. It's called eugenics and selective breeding.

Evolution, is my understanding, is being better adapted to survive and prosper in your enviroment. Those who are better at surviving are thus more evolved to fit their environment. Black people are more evolved to protect from the sun. Is there really a difference between "filling a niche" and being more evolved? We're talking about the same thing. This is a silly discussion as we are not arguing concepts, we are arguing the words we represent the concept with. I do think you can be more or less evolved. Being more or less evolved is relative to the environment. A fish on dirt is shit out of luck and less evolved for that environment. The water is where it is more evolved.

I disagree that "we can't" be more evolved. For example, if we created a race of people that were 7 feet tall, had naturally muscular physiques, inpeneratible immune systems, didn't age, and had higher mental abilties than the average human, wouldn't you call them more evolved? I would. But you would probably say their just filling some niche? 

As for devolution, If it is called evolution, I think that's silly. If something is less adapted to their environment I would consider it devolved.

Wessle, you are confusing "evolution" with "adaptation". Evolution just describes the process of changing. Adaptation just describes the process of fulfilling a niche. Evolution does not always result in adaptation. That's why most of it ends in failure and death.

You can't be more evolved - more adapted, maybe, but not more evolved. Evolution is not quantitative. Your race of supermen? I might call them better adapted, sure, but not more evolved. That is not something that makes sense according to the definition of the word "evolution".

Edit: Actually I wouldn't even call them better adapted. People that size would need more food and produce a lot more body heat, limiting the number of environments in which they could survive. Their population would necessarily be limited by biological differences.

I thought adaptation was part of evolution, as evolution is the process which causes genetic adaptations. I don't think I'm confusing the two concepts.

Now that I rethink it, you're right. More evolved means the creature went through more changes. One race could be more adapted, while at the same time having been through less changes, thus are less evolved while being more adapted.

As for my supermen, they could be bred to have lower body temps and require less food.

We don't really go through "less changes", either, unless you want to talk about something with a much lower rate of reproduction than something else - because a species changes, if only a little, from generation to generation. If we want to quantify being evolved in that way, humans would be much less evolved than, say, houseflies.

And no, your supermen really couldn't, not unless you changed their biology so that they aren't really human in the first place. Their metabolism and effective lower body temperature would mean they don't have as much energy, which would make them comparatively lethargic and still less capable of survival anyway.

Who says my supermen have to be human? We can do whatever we want to their DNA, they only have to look like humans and be able to mate. My supermen would be made to require no food, maybe give them some sort of photosynthesis.

In which case they're not really "better" than humans, they're just different.

And nothing that uses photosynthesis is going to be able to... uh.... move. They just don't absorb enough enegry to be able to do that, even on the scale of teeny plants, which have a much higher surface-to-mass ratio than do things of our size. These seven-foot-tall men would have an even bigger problem - it's actually the same thing that would make them too hot for ome environments if they consumed food in the same way we do.

This idea is so important. I think failure to understand this is why most people that doubt evolution doubt evolution.

I know it's a little old, but slimebeast's argument's flaw was primarily based on that reasoning error. It was a sophisticated version of, "If people are evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?" As Morbo would say, "Evolution does not work that way!!!"

Evolution is not linear, nor does it have a purpose. Survival of the fittest is not a goal, it's a result. When you come to understand evolution not in terms of goals or advancements, but instead in terms of results and causes, that's when you actually understand evolution. Evolution doesn't have a goal, it has a result.

As someone said earlier, Microevolution and Macroevolution are just buzz words. Species are just concepts, they aren't quantitive or measurable traits, just some things we agreed on to make easier to know wich animals we're talking about. Evolution is evolution, no matter the scale.

Edit: Canada, Evolution.