Have we halted our own Evolution?

(I'm almost certain that this has ben discussed here before but I cannot find evidence of it... apologies...)Assuming that evolution in some form exists.Is it now the case that humans have effectively Halted our evolutionary development?On one level, medical advances now dictate that, for the most part, very few disabilities (evolutionary mutations) will result in premature death, or prohibit procreation and transmission of these "defective" genes.
For instance, I am asthmatic, I would not be here if it were not for the drugs I take or the hospital care I recieved as a child.
Now if I had been born maybe 100? 200? years ago, my chances of survival would have been slim, and then only if I had been born into a wealthy family.On another level, in the pre-technology exitance of mankind, our environment, our surroundings determined the path of our evolution, our upright stance enabled us to eat from higher trees, or perhaps hunt more efficiently.
Now though, we are creating our surroundings, our environment is being designed/built to fit us. Ergonomics dictates that our world evolves so as best to suit us. not the other way around.Does this mean that this is the end of our physical evolution? What does evolution hold in store for us? will it be mental evolution? spiritual evolution?What next?

Ah yes... My error... meant to PNT this one.thanks Adminmodulous

I'm not sure I made such an assertion. (if i did it was unintentional)I listed two ways in which I feel Human evolutionary devlopment has been halted, by our own technological development.fell free to comment on/discuss these points.

Biological evolution or miscellaneous topics in creation/evolution would be fine I guessEDIT: what does AFK mean?This message has been edited by Creavolution, 03-17-2006 02:14 PM

Ah yes, unfortunately I'm NUOMGA (Not Up On My Geeky Acronyms)

Understood.
perhaps I should have made my point more clearly.
so, to return to the intended topic...do you feel that medical advances and/ or technological manipulation of our surroundings have had/will have the effect of slowing (or even halting) some aspects of our evolution? that's not what I said. please don't kneejerk yourself into an extreme position.
here's what I said... note.. "FOR THE MOST PART, VERY FEW" I did not for a second suggest all disease had been irradicated, or anything like that.I put this topic out for discussion.. I do not particularly hold any strong viewpoint on this, I am just interested to hear what people think.
I have no interest in getting into an agressive pissing contest with you.I can, however, see how or control of our surroundings, and the falling mortality rate could act to affect how we evolve.

Interesting.. Is that natural selection, or on some base level are our genes (or our designer/controller?) reacting to increased lactic intake?edited for grammarThis message has been edited by Creavolution, 03-17-2006 04:47 PM

My question is based upon the understanding that many many conditions that would have killed people years ago, from physical through to mental illness are now treated, controlled and cared for.I am not ignorant to the fact that people still die or that conditions like tuberculosis are still the largest killers in the world. I never suggested this. the post is not about the level of disease treatment in the world, it is about whether or not you feel that increasing survivability will have an effect on our evolution, and whether the fact that we now create our own environment will have an effect on our evolution.I would have thought it was possible to reply without patronising meI'm really not to interested in your confrontational attitude, this was a simple question to gauge people's thoughts. You seem intent on merely attacking my question.
It might make you feel big to attempt to belittle others. but you'll get no joy from me.I am not a scientist, a geneticist or a biologist, that is why am ASKING and not spouting my opinion.I am not writing a term paper or seeking to be graded... if this more relaxed attitude to information gathering doesn't suit you don't bother replyingI don't have the foggiest idea what nucleotide substitution is I'm sorry, I though my question was straight forward enough.. perhaps too simple for your good self.

yes. I guess that's what i'm trying to get at

But surely 'natural selection' then ceases to operate?Taking the example of my asthma... is it the case that ordinarily, the genes which cause my asthma would have dissappeared from my families bloodline, but as it is, it's still here and thriving, and my kids will likely inherit these genes.edit: Hmmm ok I should stop using the words..'cease' or 'halt'This message has been edited by Creavolution, 03-20-2006 10:35 AM

Yes, I'm beginning to realise how badly phrased the OP was. I should not have used the words "halted" or "Ceased" or anything like them.

But could the ability to absorb more Glycogen be a possible next evolutionary step? or perhaps a more efficient way to store memory in our brains?Is it not the case that we use a small percentage of our brains potential anyway?edit... our 'brian' has no potential... changed to 'brain'This message has been edited by Creavolution, 03-27-2006 02:01 PM