quotes by leading evolutionary scientists

[IR1SH ACE]

the bible is not one book, but several books that have been combined into one at a later date. furthermore the church is not the bible. mainstream churches tell a lot of unbiblical lies and often just follow whatever philosophy is most common in that age.

with that logic you could state that the ipad evolved from the iphone, because it looks simular and uses simular technology. it has the same manufacturer, if something works, why change it?

nice rebuttal. ..seen as you responded less then 15 mins after my post I take it you did not bother watching the very informative video I left there just for you...oh and if Ipods, Iphones & Ipads all evolve to point of awareness Im sure that in a few 1000 years they will have similiar debates about who there creator was...."it was the almighty JOBS that made us in 6 days"......"no no it was the all knowing and all seeing CHINA that created us".......enjoy your bliss

good news this night has not been a total waste those hind legs just fell off the donkey so looks like I win....

[kentington]

the bible is not one book, but several books that have been combined into one at a later date. furthermore the church is not the bible. mainstream churches tell a lot of unbiblical lies and often just follow whatever philosophy is most common in that age.

with that logic you could state that the ipad evolved from the iphone, because it looks simular and uses simular technology. it has the same manufacturer, if something works, why change it?

nice rebuttal. ..seen as you responded less then 15 mins after my post I take it you did not bother watching the very informative video I left there just for you...oh and if Ipods, Iphones & Ipads all evolve to point of awareness Im sure that in a few 1000 years they will have similiar debates about who there creator was...."it was the almighty JOBS that made us in 6 days"......"no no it was the all knowing and all seeing CHINA that created us".......enjoy your bliss

good news this night has not been a total waste those hind legs just fell off the donkey so looks like I win....

I just finished watching the whole video. I will say more later on this weekend.
It was very informative. I don't agree with some portions, however, there are certain undeniable things in the video. It was too long to make a good comment right after watching it. I need to digest it first and I might have to watch it again if I have time.

[PLAYER57832]

Zimmah claimed to be well read on both sides of the divide but I have asked him like 4 times now and he has still failed to name a single book he has read. Now I see when he said he had read what the evolutionists were saying he really meant he had read quotes taken out of context in creationist materials.

This, pretty much.


IN detail:

quotes by leading evolutionary scientists, and even Darwin himself. By their own words they admit this very important piece of the evolutionary puzzle does not fit, and never will. Enjoy.

“There is another and allied difficulty, which is much more serious. I allude to the manner in which species belonging to several of the main divisions of the animal kingdom suddenly appear in the lowest known fossiliferous rocks.” (Darwin, The Origin of Species, p. 348),

Darwin???? really???? He got a LOT of things wrong. Science moves a lot in a 100+ years. His basic ideas are still valid,( the idea that things change over time, that natural selection leads to more adaptation, etc. .. though, in truth they were not necessarily his ideas alone). However, he thought the Earth much younger than it is, thought evolutionary change happened much more quickly.

Also, he had no knowledge of the past disasters that we now know virtually ended life on Earth more than once.

“The abrupt manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations, has been urged by several palaeontologists—for instance, by Agassiz, Pictet, and Sedgwick—as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species. If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution through natural selection.” (Ibid., p. 344),

Some famous scientists have put forward things that have proven false. This happens in science. It is why Creationists have been given a voice on occasion.. becuase scientists, by their very nature are curious about honest attacks on their ideas. Unfortunately, creationists fail to find proof.. and basically act like toddlers stomping off becuause mom and dad won't accept that flying bunnies threw the toys around.

“To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system, I can give no satisfactory answer.” (Ibid., p. 350),

Huh? there are plenty of precambrian fossils.

try picking any of these links listed here:
http://www.bing.com/search?q=precambria ... GD&pc=OBRN

“The case at present must remain inexplicable, and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained.” (Ibid., p. 351),

“The most famous such burst, the Cambrian explosion, marks the inception of modern multicellular life. Within just a few million years, nearly every major kind of animal anatomy appears in the fossil record for the first time ... The Precambrian record is now sufficiently good that the old rationale about undiscovered sequences of smoothly transitional forms will no longer wash.” (Stephen Jay Gould, “An Asteroid to Die For,” Discover, October 1989, p. 65),

And? You seem to be missing some pretty significant parts of that discussion. I would be interested in seeing the whole.

“And we find many of them [Cambrian fossils] already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists.” (Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker London: W.W. Norton & Company, 1987, p. 229),

Again, you pick out a paragraph and omit any context or discussion. To claim that Richard Dawkins is somehow putting forward arguments in favor of Creationism is a pretty far stretch indeed!

“One of the major unsolved problems of geology and evolution is the occurrence of diversified, multicellular marine invertebrates in Lower Cambrian rocks on all the continents and their absence in rocks of greater age.” (I. Axelrod, “Early Cambrian Marine Fauna,” Science, Vol. 128, 4 July 1958, p. 7),

1958??? SERIOUSLY???? It really does not question evolution. Just says there are things not found yet. At any rate, this predates a lot of discoveries and many others. We now know a lot more than we did in 1958.

“Evolutionary biology’s deepest paradox concerns this strange discontinuity. Why haven’t new animal body plans continued to crawl out of the evolutionary cauldron during the past hundreds of millions of years? Why are the ancient body plans so stable?” (Jeffrey S. Levinton, “The Big Bang of Animal Evolution,” Scientific American, Vol. 267, November 1992, p. 84),

This WAS a good question. We don't have the full answer, but part of it is that we now know there were a series of cateclisms that killed off most life on Earth at various stages. The remaining species then had a tough time at first, but then proliferated. Its pretty much what happens with antibiotics and bacteria or pests and crops sprayed with pesticides. Except, instead of decades... the process for higher animals took hundreds and thousands of years. In between, animals changed very slowly.

(incidentally, we are in a period of huge die-offs right now... human caused die-offs. And that is why we are actually able to see some evolutionary processes happening in our lifetimes. This is NOT good news for us.. not at all. It means our world is changing very rapidly).

“Granted an evolutionary origin of the main groups of animals, and not an act of special creation, the absence of any record whatsoever of a single member of any of the phyla in the Pre-Cambrian rocks remains as inexplicable on orthodox grounds as it was to Darwin.” (T. Neville George Professor of Geology at the University of Glasgow, “Fossils in Evolutionary Perspective,” Science Progress, Vol. 48, No. 189, January 1960, p. 5).

1960??? AGAIN???
Please, try something from this century. The above is just wrong. It was thought correct at the time, but now is just wrong.

truth hurts, doesn't it?

Is that why you work so hard to avoid facing it?

Seriously, Christ did not teach his disciples to lie or to distort in his name. Yet.. that is exactly what is being done in so-called Creation "science".

[PLAYER57832]

Zimmah claimed to be well read on both sides of the divide but I have asked him like 4 times now and he has still failed to name a single book he has read. Now I see when he said he had read what the evolutionists were saying he really meant he had read quotes taken out of context in creationist materials.

This, pretty much.


IN detail:

quotes by leading evolutionary scientists, and even Darwin himself. By their own words they admit this very important piece of the evolutionary puzzle does not fit, and never will. Enjoy.

“There is another and allied difficulty, which is much more serious. I allude to the manner in which species belonging to several of the main divisions of the animal kingdom suddenly appear in the lowest known fossiliferous rocks.” (Darwin, The Origin of Species, p. 348),

Darwin???? really???? He got a LOT of things wrong. Science moves a lot in a 100+ years. His basic ideas are still valid,( the idea that things change over time, that natural selection leads to more adaptation, etc. .. though, in truth they were not necessarily his ideas alone). However, he thought the Earth much younger than it is, thought evolutionary change happened much more quickly.

Also, he had no knowledge of the past disasters that we now know virtually ended life on Earth more than once.

“The abrupt manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations, has been urged by several palaeontologists—for instance, by Agassiz, Pictet, and Sedgwick—as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species. If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution through natural selection.” (Ibid., p. 344),

Some famous scientists have put forward things that have proven false. This happens in science. It is why Creationists have been given a voice on occasion.. becuase scientists, by their very nature are curious about honest attacks on their ideas. Unfortunately, creationists fail to find proof.. and basically act like toddlers stomping off becuause mom and dad won't accept that flying bunnies threw the toys around.

“To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system, I can give no satisfactory answer.” (Ibid., p. 350),

Huh? there are plenty of precambrian fossils.

try picking any of these links listed here:
http://www.bing.com/search?q=precambria ... GD&pc=OBRN

“The case at present must remain inexplicable, and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained.” (Ibid., p. 351),

“The most famous such burst, the Cambrian explosion, marks the inception of modern multicellular life. Within just a few million years, nearly every major kind of animal anatomy appears in the fossil record for the first time ... The Precambrian record is now sufficiently good that the old rationale about undiscovered sequences of smoothly transitional forms will no longer wash.” (Stephen Jay Gould, “An Asteroid to Die For,” Discover, October 1989, p. 65),

And? You seem to be missing some pretty significant parts of that discussion. I would be interested in seeing the whole.

“And we find many of them [Cambrian fossils] already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists.” (Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker London: W.W. Norton & Company, 1987, p. 229),

Again, you pick out a paragraph and omit any context or discussion. To claim that Richard Dawkins is somehow putting forward arguments in favor of Creationism is a pretty far stretch indeed!

“One of the major unsolved problems of geology and evolution is the occurrence of diversified, multicellular marine invertebrates in Lower Cambrian rocks on all the continents and their absence in rocks of greater age.” (I. Axelrod, “Early Cambrian Marine Fauna,” Science, Vol. 128, 4 July 1958, p. 7),

1958??? SERIOUSLY???? It really does not question evolution. Just says there are things not found yet. At any rate, this predates a lot of discoveries and many others. We now know a lot more than we did in 1958.

“Evolutionary biology’s deepest paradox concerns this strange discontinuity. Why haven’t new animal body plans continued to crawl out of the evolutionary cauldron during the past hundreds of millions of years? Why are the ancient body plans so stable?” (Jeffrey S. Levinton, “The Big Bang of Animal Evolution,” Scientific American, Vol. 267, November 1992, p. 84),

This WAS a good question. We don't have the full answer, but part of it is that we now know there were a series of cateclisms that killed off most life on Earth at various stages. The remaining species then had a tough time at first, but then proliferated. Its pretty much what happens with antibiotics and bacteria or pests and crops sprayed with pesticides. Except, instead of decades... the process for higher animals took hundreds and thousands of years. In between, animals changed very slowly.

(incidentally, we are in a period of huge die-offs right now... human caused die-offs. And that is why we are actually able to see some evolutionary processes happening in our lifetimes. This is NOT good news for us.. not at all. It means our world is changing very rapidly).

“Granted an evolutionary origin of the main groups of animals, and not an act of special creation, the absence of any record whatsoever of a single member of any of the phyla in the Pre-Cambrian rocks remains as inexplicable on orthodox grounds as it was to Darwin.” (T. Neville George Professor of Geology at the University of Glasgow, “Fossils in Evolutionary Perspective,” Science Progress, Vol. 48, No. 189, January 1960, p. 5).

1960??? AGAIN???
Please, try something from this century. The above is just wrong. It was thought correct at the time, but now is just wrong.

truth hurts, doesn't it?

Is that why you work so hard to avoid facing it?

Seriously, Christ did not teach his disciples to lie or to distort in his name. Yet.. that is exactly what is being done in so-called Creation "science". Try asking yourself why so few Jews accept young earth ideas. (note, I did not say "none".. so don't bother digging up websites from the few outliers. I know they exist).

[nietzsche]

the bible is not one book, but several books that have been combined into one at a later date. furthermore the church is not the bible. mainstream churches tell a lot of unbiblical lies and often just follow whatever philosophy is most common in that age.

with that logic you could state that the ipad evolved from the iphone, because it looks simular and uses simular technology. it has the same manufacturer, if something works, why change it?

nice rebuttal. ..seen as you responded less then 15 mins after my post I take it you did not bother watching the very informative video I left there just for you...oh and if Ipods, Iphones & Ipads all evolve to point of awareness Im sure that in a few 1000 years they will have similiar debates about who there creator was...."it was the almighty JOBS that made us in 6 days"......"no no it was the all knowing and all seeing CHINA that created us".......enjoy your bliss

good news this night has not been a total waste those hind legs just fell off the donkey so looks like I win....

I just finished watching the whole video. I will say more later on this weekend.
It was very informative. I don't agree with some portions, however, there are certain undeniable things in the video. It was too long to make a good comment right after watching it. I need to digest it first and I might have to watch it again if I have time.

Everything on that video is explained in detail in Dan Dennet's book Darwin's Dangerous Idea. But in the book he makes you think, he explains everything more in detail and with a lot more topics. If you liked the video I really recommend you to read it. Dennet is a very good writer, unlike Dawkins whose style is kind of dry.

http://www.amazon.com/DARWINS-DANGEROUS-IDEA-EVOLUTION-MEANINGS/dp/068482471X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1335324799&sr=8-1

[Symmetry]

the bible is not one book, but several books that have been combined into one at a later date. furthermore the church is not the bible. mainstream churches tell a lot of unbiblical lies and often just follow whatever philosophy is most common in that age.

with that logic you could state that the ipad evolved from the iphone, because it looks simular and uses simular technology. it has the same manufacturer, if something works, why change it?

nice rebuttal. ..seen as you responded less then 15 mins after my post I take it you did not bother watching the very informative video I left there just for you...oh and if Ipods, Iphones & Ipads all evolve to point of awareness Im sure that in a few 1000 years they will have similiar debates about who there creator was...."it was the almighty JOBS that made us in 6 days"......"no no it was the all knowing and all seeing CHINA that created us".......enjoy your bliss

good news this night has not been a total waste those hind legs just fell off the donkey so looks like I win....

I just finished watching the whole video. I will say more later on this weekend.
It was very informative. I don't agree with some portions, however, there are certain undeniable things in the video. It was too long to make a good comment right after watching it. I need to digest it first and I might have to watch it again if I have time.

Everything on that video is explained in detail in Dan Dennet's book Darwin's Dangerous Idea. But in the book he makes you think, he explains everything more in detail and with a lot more topics. If you liked the video I really recommend you to read it. Dennet is a very good writer, unlike Dawkins whose style is kind of dry.

http://www.amazon.com/DARWINS-DANGEROUS-IDEA-EVOLUTION-MEANINGS/dp/068482471X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1335324799&sr=8-1

Dawkins is awesome if you read his proper stuff- The Selfish Gene, Climbing Mount Improbable, The Blind Watchmaker...

If you're going by his atheist stuff, then he's kind of boring- everyone who starts the God Delusion, atheist or believer, seems to come to the end of it with a firmer, slightly less rational version of the position they started with.

[kentington]

Thanks guys. I will look into these books. Especially if they go more into detail.

Did anyone happen to watch the whole video?
When he spoke about the moths, was he just showing Natural Selection or was he saying this was a mutation? That part just seemed like the genes were available within the species and they were different breeds.

I've never really gotten into studying evolution. I was turned off by a high school teacher, who took any questions as challenges and would not explain a thing. This happens in all subjects. There is a question I have always wondered about evolutionists though:
If we are evolved, then are some of us further evolved? Would this mean that some races are further evolved than others? Why isn't more being done to further evolve our species? Finding those healthy with high IQ's and breeding them. Finding the strongest and brightest and breeding them. That may sound weird but I have heard of scientists doing much worse.

[Symmetry]

Thanks guys. I will look into these books. Especially if they go more into detail.

Did anyone happen to watch the whole video?
When he spoke about the moths, was he just showing Natural Selection or was he saying this was a mutation? That part just seemed like the genes were available within the species and they were different breeds.

I've never really gotten into studying evolution. I was turned off by a high school teacher, who took any questions as challenges and would not explain a thing. This happens in all subjects. There is a question I have always wondered about evolutionists though:
If we are evolved, then are some of us further evolved? Would this mean that some races are further evolved than others? Why isn't more being done to further evolve our species? Finding those healthy with high IQ's and breeding them. Finding the strongest and brightest and breeding them. That may sound weird but I have heard of scientists doing much worse.

More evolved is kind of the wrong way to look at it. Evolution is mainly about success in the environment you live in. Depending on the environment, some humans are more evolved than others. Take a mutation like sickle-cell anaemia, for example. Terrible thing to have if you live in the west, but very good at protecting you from Malaria. Sickle-cell anaemia is much more common among Africans and those of African descent, because the mutation protects against a disease that's very common in Africa.

[kentington]

Thanks guys. I will look into these books. Especially if they go more into detail.

Did anyone happen to watch the whole video?
When he spoke about the moths, was he just showing Natural Selection or was he saying this was a mutation? That part just seemed like the genes were available within the species and they were different breeds.

I've never really gotten into studying evolution. I was turned off by a high school teacher, who took any questions as challenges and would not explain a thing. This happens in all subjects. There is a question I have always wondered about evolutionists though:
If we are evolved, then are some of us further evolved? Would this mean that some races are further evolved than others? Why isn't more being done to further evolve our species? Finding those healthy with high IQ's and breeding them. Finding the strongest and brightest and breeding them. That may sound weird but I have heard of scientists doing much worse.

More evolved is kind of the wrong way to look at it. Evolution is mainly about success in the environment you live in. Depending on the environment, some humans are more evolved than others. Take a mutation like sickle-cell anaemia, for example. Terrible thing to have if you live in the west, but very good at protecting you from Malaria. Sickle-cell anaemia is much more common among Africans and those of African descent, because the mutation protects against a disease that's very common in Africa.

True, I agree with you. Africans are a robust people who are able to survive in conditions we would suffer quickly under.
As Africans have become Americans, does Sickle-cell anaemia go way with inter/intra? breeding with those that don't have it?
What I mean by more evolved is that as humans survival rate is enormous compared to what it used to be. It seems like we are preventing Natural Selection from moving us forward.

[Symmetry]

Thanks guys. I will look into these books. Especially if they go more into detail.

Did anyone happen to watch the whole video?
When he spoke about the moths, was he just showing Natural Selection or was he saying this was a mutation? That part just seemed like the genes were available within the species and they were different breeds.

I've never really gotten into studying evolution. I was turned off by a high school teacher, who took any questions as challenges and would not explain a thing. This happens in all subjects. There is a question I have always wondered about evolutionists though:
If we are evolved, then are some of us further evolved? Would this mean that some races are further evolved than others? Why isn't more being done to further evolve our species? Finding those healthy with high IQ's and breeding them. Finding the strongest and brightest and breeding them. That may sound weird but I have heard of scientists doing much worse.

More evolved is kind of the wrong way to look at it. Evolution is mainly about success in the environment you live in. Depending on the environment, some humans are more evolved than others. Take a mutation like sickle-cell anaemia, for example. Terrible thing to have if you live in the west, but very good at protecting you from Malaria. Sickle-cell anaemia is much more common among Africans and those of African descent, because the mutation protects against a disease that's very common in Africa.

True, I agree with you. Africans are a robust people who are able to survive in conditions we would suffer quickly under.
As Africans have become Americans, does Sickle-cell anaemia go way with inter/intra? breeding with those that don't have it?
What I mean by more evolved is that as humans survival rate is enormous compared to what it used to be. It seems like we are preventing Natural Selection from moving us forward.

It's certainly not a favourable condition to have in an area that isn't prone to Malaria, and sufferers die younger. It's not likely to go away anytime soon, but hey.

One of the ideas that you'll encounter if you look at Dawkins' earlier stuff, and that kind of links in to his less interesting later stuff is the idea of "memes". Basically, as well as genetic inheritance, he suggests that cultures have a mimetic inheritance- that is we mimic behaviours observed from previous generations. I think he pushes too far when he went into the God Delusion angle, but the basic idea is pretty sound.

That some cultural ideas can be passed on from generation to generation, and that they can provide a survival advantage.

In his earlier books he talks about altruism as a survival advantage. Survival of the fittest would seem to argue for selfish individualism in animals. But social animals that protect one another have an advantage. They have a more diverse gene pool, and the individuals are more likely to protect one another. Thus altruism is a behaviour that, while superficially goes against the whole "red in tooth and claw" view of evolution, can actually be an asset for a species.

[nietzsche]

Thanks guys. I will look into these books. Especially if they go more into detail.

Did anyone happen to watch the whole video?
When he spoke about the moths, was he just showing Natural Selection or was he saying this was a mutation? That part just seemed like the genes were available within the species and they were different breeds.

I've never really gotten into studying evolution. I was turned off by a high school teacher, who took any questions as challenges and would not explain a thing. This happens in all subjects. There is a question I have always wondered about evolutionists though:
If we are evolved, then are some of us further evolved? Would this mean that some races are further evolved than others? Why isn't more being done to further evolve our species? Finding those healthy with high IQ's and breeding them. Finding the strongest and brightest and breeding them. That may sound weird but I have heard of scientists doing much worse.

More evolved is kind of the wrong way to look at it. Evolution is mainly about success in the environment you live in. Depending on the environment, some humans are more evolved than others. Take a mutation like sickle-cell anaemia, for example. Terrible thing to have if you live in the west, but very good at protecting you from Malaria. Sickle-cell anaemia is much more common among Africans and those of African descent, because the mutation protects against a disease that's very common in Africa.

True, I agree with you. Africans are a robust people who are able to survive in conditions we would suffer quickly under.
As Africans have become Americans, does Sickle-cell anaemia go way with inter/intra? breeding with those that don't have it?
What I mean by more evolved is that as humans survival rate is enormous compared to what it used to be. It seems like we are preventing Natural Selection from moving us forward.

It's certainly not a favourable condition to have in an area that isn't prone to Malaria, and sufferers die younger. It's not likely to go away anytime soon, but hey.

One of the ideas that you'll encounter if you look at Dawkins' earlier stuff, and that kind of links in to his less interesting later stuff is the idea of "memes". Basically, as well as genetic inheritance, he suggests that cultures have a mimetic inheritance- that is we mimic behaviours observed from previous generations. I think he pushes too far when he went into the God Delusion angle, but the basic idea is pretty sound.

That some cultural ideas can be passed on from generation to generation, and that they can provide a survival advantage.

In his earlier books he talks about altruism as a survival advantage. Survival of the fittest would seem to argue for selfish individualism in animals. But social animals that protect one another have an advantage. They have a more diverse gene pool, and the individuals are more likely to protect one another. Thus altruism is a behaviour that, while superficially goes against the whole "red in tooth and claw" view of evolution, can actually be an asset for a species.

Dawkins most significant accomplishment will be coining the "meme" term. The selfish gene was his best book, but as at the end of the video points out, it goes further than that, it's not about genes in the end, it's about "the evolution of evolution". Sort of evolving things that will evolve better, systems, organs, etc.

I've read The Selfish Gene and half of The Blind Watchmaker, but I still hold that Dennet is a more entertaining writer, he comments, makes you think, gives thought experiments..

[Neoteny]

Thanks guys. I will look into these books. Especially if they go more into detail.

Did anyone happen to watch the whole video?
When he spoke about the moths, was he just showing Natural Selection or was he saying this was a mutation? That part just seemed like the genes were available within the species and they were different breeds.

I've never really gotten into studying evolution. I was turned off by a high school teacher, who took any questions as challenges and would not explain a thing. This happens in all subjects. There is a question I have always wondered about evolutionists though:
If we are evolved, then are some of us further evolved? Would this mean that some races are further evolved than others? Why isn't more being done to further evolve our species? Finding those healthy with high IQ's and breeding them. Finding the strongest and brightest and breeding them. That may sound weird but I have heard of scientists doing much worse.

More evolved is kind of the wrong way to look at it. Evolution is mainly about success in the environment you live in. Depending on the environment, some humans are more evolved than others. Take a mutation like sickle-cell anaemia, for example. Terrible thing to have if you live in the west, but very good at protecting you from Malaria. Sickle-cell anaemia is much more common among Africans and those of African descent, because the mutation protects against a disease that's very common in Africa.

True, I agree with you. Africans are a robust people who are able to survive in conditions we would suffer quickly under.
As Africans have become Americans, does Sickle-cell anaemia go way with inter/intra? breeding with those that don't have it?
What I mean by more evolved is that as humans survival rate is enormous compared to what it used to be. It seems like we are preventing Natural Selection from moving us forward.

The modern evolutionary perspective is not directional. That is, there is no higher or further. We, and all other animals, are what we are. Selection pressures effect change, but the individuals that are changed are not more evolved per se. They've had the same amount time to evolve, but may or may not have changed much from their ancestors. So, from that perspective, the question doesn't make sense.

A more direct answer to your question is that there are other selection pressures other than natural selection. Sexual selection is famously powerful. On top of that, processes like genetic drift are occurring. On top of that, our most powerful natural enemies, and allies, bacteria and viruses, are evolveing right alongside us, and they are still a powerful force for selection, though their effects tend to be very cyclic.

In short, evolution historically occurs in fits and starts, requiring one change in the status quo to kickstart a runaway sequence. Now is no different. Ethics prevents us from meddling too much with ourselves.

[Neoteny]

Selfish gene theory is beautiful, from my reductionist perspective. Plus, the back and forth between Dawkins, Gould, and the various other personalities really shine a spotlight on evolution from both a scientific and popular perspective. Brilliant science writers. Dennett's good too. But Sagan wins over all of them.

[Symmetry]