[gallo]

Quote by: harrythehorton The process of evolution logically is mainly due to two causes:

Use of the word "cause" isn't the best choice. A biologist would more likely use the word "mechanism." There are several mechanisms of evolution, but untold causes. You see, a cause might be any environmental change to which a population of organisms adapts by changes in the genetic makeup of the population. However, evolution is the result of processes that either increase or decrease genetic variation, the mechanisms of evolution. The result of these genetic changes in a population is evolution.

Survival of the fittest:

Bad choice of words. As I explained before, the phrase "survival of the fittest" was coined by a social economist named Herbert Spencer. Spencer was talking about business in a capitalist society, i.e., businesses that offer products and services that the public demands succeed, while those that do not fail. Darwin objected to the application of the term to his theory of natural selection. Wallace, the co-discoverer of the theory, finally persuaded Darwin to use the phrase ("survival of the fittest"), since it had come into common use. However, Darwin didn't use it until the 5th edition of "On the Origin of Species" in Feb of 1869. He never used it without making it clear that he was talking about natural selection by using that term in the same paragraph, sometimes in the same sentence.

Thus, you should have said that one of the two most important mechanisms of evolution is natural selection.

By the way, Darwin didn't use the word 'evolution' until the sixth edition of Origin (1872). He was talked into it by T.H. Huxley. In Darwin's time the word meant change in a particular direction and that's not what Darwin meant by his theories. We still use the old connotation when we talk about stelar evolution, in which main line stars follow a certain pattern of changes. There is no specific direction or goal to biological evolution - only differential reproductive success.

there being differences due to gene variation,

A biologist would say genetic diversity.

and such differences causing a larger percentage of a population to survive with a variation than without.

You seem to have the idea but you stopped too soon. An allele that is advantageous is one that gives a statistical advantage to survive to reproduce. If an organism doesn't reproduce then is is evolutionarily meaningless.

For example, the Grants, in their studies of ground Finches in the Galapagos islands trapped tagged and released every finch on their island for over twenty years. They could recognize most birds by sight. Two individuals lived longer than any of the other finches and they mated every year. You might think that they left lots of descendants. In fact, they left none. Not one of their offspring survived to reproduce. So, even though they were the best survivors, they had no impact on the evolution of finches.

So eventually those without such a variation would die out(due to not passing on their genes).

That's not very well stated. What matters is not genes, since all individuals of a population have the same set of genes. What matters are the alleles that cause variations in the characteristics caused by those alleles. And they don't die out. The alleles become less frequent in the genome of the population. Rarely does a gene die out.

Genetic mutation: Mutations can come from several places, even having your nuts(Planters?) out in the sun.

But sunlight isn't meaningful as a source of genetic mutation. Cosmic radiation, maybe, or just errors of various kinds during reproduction (point mutations, crossovers, duplications, inversions, transpositions, etc.)

The only way for your to pass on a genetic mutation is for such a mutation to occur within the gamete.

No. In the reproductive cells that produce the gametes.

Otherwise you would be the only one with the mutation. [ex. if you get an extreme tan, your children wont come out darker]

Hopefully, you are aware that a tan is not a mutation of any kind.

To say 'we come from monkeys' is a pretty ignorant thing to say. 1. we're more closely related to chimpanzees (then other apes) than monkeys.

Correct. We share a common ancestor with the two species of chimp. That ancestor lived somewhere between 5 to 7 million years ago.

2. It's not stating that we come FROM monkeys, it's just saying that somewhere along the line, a LONG time ago, we shared a common ancestor. We evolved in one dirrection, and they evolved in another(to suit different means of survival) eventually we became separate species.

correct.