Of course, a single individual does not change in the course of her life. But you said a single individual can not be “differently evolved”. Of course, she can be. Assume a beneficial mutation that occurs at generation M (from some arbitrary starting point) in a single individual among a population N of a species. Now, if N >>> M, even by generation M+10, her descendants will be “differently evolved” than other descendants. Hell, we(all instances of organisms) are all differently evolved (except among monozygotic twins & such analogs). The ‘meaningful’ is a value judgement, which without hindsight, we aren’t much qualified to make.
This is the wrong conditional, it should be something like spawn.max(10 generations) <<< N
First off, evolution is not driven by beneficial mutations arising in single individuals. In such a case, it would take far too long for that trait to become prevalent enough in a population for it to be relevant. Further, it would be severely muted by the fact that subsequent generations must be necessarily heterozygous, which means whatever benefit that single mutation confered upon its orginal owner will likely be lessened in subsequent generations, further lessening the chance that it would even get the chance to become prevalent. All of which assumes that that lone pioneer does not simply meet an unfortunate end prior to mating in the first place. This is why such instances are not evolutionarily “meaningful” - in the long run, they matter little to the evolution of the species. That’s not a matter of judgment, its a matter of statistical insignificance.
Second, the features which distinguish individuals within a population are variations of a trait, not new traits in themselves. Evolution is defined and characterized by how a population changes over time, but that change is driven by the success of individuals making up that population. And that success is, in turn, determined by the particular variations of fixed traits (by “fixed”, I mean those traits which diagnose a species in the first place, not that such traits are static and unchanging) and their relevance to the environment in which those individuals find themselves.
Finally, to say that one individual is “differently evolved” implies that that individual evolved differently from his/her conspecifics. Such is not the case; otherwise, said individual would not even be of the same species.
But the characterization of whether a particular specimen exhibits a variation of a trait rather than a new trait is itself a value judgement. How different must a variation be for a trait to be a new one?
The different ‘species’ is a human academic classification. Are we of the same species as a chimpanzee? At one time we unambigiously were. Whether you choose to classify an erect posture as a “new trait” or a variation of an old trait is your value judgement, a product of your taxonomic goals.
At the least, all higher life is agreed to have common origins. If you count all descendants of those common origins as a population, then it’s pretty obvious that one can “evolve differently”. Instead, initially mostly based on superficial criteria, we partition and classify off this population into a branched tree. Given enough time, I don’t see why a subset within a species can’t show enough difference from other subsets of the same “species”.
Of course, all this is moot if you define as evolution as pertaining to a “population”, then by definition, individuals can’t be differently evolved.
Evolution has come to a standstill. We are a product/function of our environment.
Our genepools are dilluted with disease, and so is our poor planet.
Ecologically speaking?, the human race is doomed, the earth can only be described as a giant anthill.
Religion is nothing more than a diversion from our every day activities.
It seems to help calm the beast within each and every one of us.
We were born killers and we will remain killers. We eat meat, we like it, if it bleeds someone somewhere out there wants to see it bleed whatever it is.
Our socieites are mostly hanging on the cusp of major despair, destruction, and calamities of all sorts.
Lets talk about evolution now shall we?
Other than all that, toysarefun, how would you assess the status of our species? 
As soon as you start talking about evolution. Have you actually ever studied evolution at all?
That’s rather the point. Evolution, by definition, is a population-level phenomenon. Individuals do not evolve, therefore they cannot be “differently evolved”.
How are the boundaries of a population defined?