Any distinction between “man” and “nature” is a false dichotomy. Our activities are a direct result of the very natural interactions of matter which gave rise to our predecessors, et cetera… implying that there is a natural evolution in opposition to an unnatural evolution is absurd, though I tend to think of changes to genetic structure (or changes to ideas) based in deliberate and conscious action to be a kind of assisted process: genetic engineering and metacognitive evaluation could be considered a discrete category opposite the “natural”, unconscious interaction of amino acids.

I consider consciousness a kind of successor to physical evolution – where genetic adaptation proved inadequate to facilitate rapid adjustment, the capacity for knowledge has compensated.

The human body’s functions are generally optimized for information-bearing capacity, even if it’s not obvious for all specimens: from a purely mechanical point of view, the human brain’s oxygen and glucose requirements would likely appear to be grossly inefficient in comparison to the anatomy of similarly-sized mammals, however, this physical adaptation facilitates feats far in excess of the strength or even intelligence of the individual via use of machines and collaboration between individuals.

Moreover, the traditional theories of evolution as a process of random mutation are becoming somewhat dated – there is evidence to suggest that evolution may occur over the course of an organism’s actual lifespan (versus a predetermined evolution occurring in the genetic material passed from parent organisms subsequently passed down to the best breeders).

The evolution in vivo hypothesis is very elegant – consider what it would mean for rapid adaptation (the very core demand placed upon a species threatened with extinction):

A ‘gene’ has for a long time been defined as a DNA sequence which encodes a single protein. The human genome was found to contain approximately 30,000 genes, but these coding sequences comprise only about 2% of the genome. A major proportion of the human genome is now known to consist of viral DNA sequences; the coding sequences of some genes overlap with, or are contained entirely within, those of others; coding sequences of individual gene products can be spread out across the genome, seperated by vast distances; and large sections of the genome encode RNA molecules of unknown function. In light of this, the definition of a gene has had to be reconsidered.

- Rapidly evolving RNA genes in human evolution
Neurophilosophy
2006-08-18

From what I can tell, evolution by natural selection is applicable to many realms of biology (maybe cosmology too), but in regards to human matters, it seems that the analogy isn’t totally appropriate because our response to our environment isn’t random in the same way that mutation is random in DNA synthesis or immunoresponses, etc.