> [snip the good stuff]
> >Does such technology really equal evolutionary advancement?
> > Penny *for one, maybe, not using circular logic* stamp
>
> It's thought by many that humanity is both evolving slowly [mutant children, etc. (mutant has no bad connotations in my book)] and quickly. The quick evolution of humanity has been considered to be the passing on of knowledge. I see it a little bit differently... evolution is an interaction between species and their environments. As a species, we're staying fairly constant.

But are we? I read in the paper the other day about human height increase. I'm not even talking about height increase over *centuries*, only decades. Apparently the average Asian teenage boy is 10cm taller now than in the 1950s. That's something which is passed on. Major evolutionary changes are generally considered to take effect over thousands of years, from what I understand, so when you can see a significant change like that in half a century, we're still moving along at quite a rate.

This is where our technological evolution assists physical evolution, since I assume the *reason* for the original height increase is nutrition-related.

Brunnen-"would reveal my sources for that statistic, but I threw the newspaper away"G