Quote Originally Posted by mrdevious
humans indeed change, but change itself is not evolution. evolution is the result of a certain area of the species having a survival advantage which makes them dominant in the gene pool. over the millions and millions of years creatures evolved because those most adept to the situation stayed alive, not because our genes recognized the need for survival. that is why we would stop after 4 billion years of evolving, because disantvantages to survival no longer mean death as they would in nature.
So you're saying genes no longer have any effect whatsoever on survival rates? There are some researchers who say that a very small portion of the population is naturally immune to AIDS because they lack a certain receptor. Would it be unreasonable to expect them to increase their standing in the gene pool if AIDS becomes a much more serious problem?

Also, how can we be sure that society and government won't ever bring about a program of eugenics?

Quote Originally Posted by Mojavpa
I think you have to go on a case by case basis-disease wise. For example, the number of children with down syndrome might increase because more women are having kids when they're 35 or over with the help of drugs, which increases the liklihood of having a child with down syndrome.

However, many incidences of diseases that come up in close knit communities might decrease because of technology. We can choose potential mates from all corners of the earth, and more and more people are migrating from country to country. genetic variation is a good thing evolutionally speaking. It kind of "dilutes" bad genes.
Very good points.