Sorry!
That’s not what it means in the context of Biology, gportela. That’s a general-use definition.
Source: AHD
And your problem in grasping this, in my opinion, stems from your unwillingness to let go of a certain ill-formed concept you have:
Inferior according to whom?
FYI
Evolution: 1. the continuous modification and adaptation of organisms to their environments through selection, hybridization, and the like.
Source
-
Biology a. Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species. b. The historical development of a related group of organisms; phylogeny.
Source
The vernacular meaning of “evolution” is not equivalent to the meaning within biology (just as neither definition is relevant when discussing evolution in a mathematical context). Within a biological context, there is no criterion for passing to a “more advanced” state - especially since “advanced” is a relative qualifier.
Curses! Foiled again!
Yeah, but you said it better. 
So you believe a tainted gene pool is benificial to the human species?
Hmmmm.
Tainted according to whom?
The only people that would defend this position would have to be the people who are benefiting from the process of unnatural selection!
Them, and, you know, people who believe in science.
With respect, this would include you and your family, unless they have not used any medical treatments for several generations. Heck, you even benefit when others use medical treatments; smallpox has been eliminated as a threat to you because others were willing to be inoculated against it.
You’re using a computer to share your opinion, rather than sitting on the front porch and using only your human voice, right?
Nope. But I am also aware that selection doesn’t work for the benefit of the species. Nor even the benefit of a population. It works by filtering out those individuals who, given current environmental conditions (which, again, includes medical care for a number of humans), possess traits which prove detrimental under those conditions. For a given trait, its relative detriment or benefit is dependent on the environment.
If modern medicine provides an environment whereby certain traits no longer present the barriers to survival or reproduction that they might have sans medicine, then those traits are less likely to be selected against. You may not like it, I may not like it, the species may not like it. But there you go. It’s still evolution. In the biological sense, of course.
Yes Finch, it’s still evolution, but it did change the direction evolution preceded. I guess the question is what is the definition of “anti- evolutionary”?
I meant proceeded
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Darwin’s Finch *
**
Nope. But I am also aware that selection doesn’t work for the benefit of the species. Nor even the benefit of a population.
oh no?
I guess that is the point.
I believe medicine that inhibits evolution
to be anti-evolutionary.
That was the original question!
Gotta agree. The question isn’t whether medicine is good or bad, or whether we’d be here if our recent ancestors would’ve died from smallpox. It’s if medicine changes the course of evolution for humans. It seems we all pretty much agree it does. ANTI- EVOLUTIONARY!
x-ray vision, i guess you and Darwin’s Finch’s definition of “benefit” here is different.
Medicine is not anti-evolutionary.
It IS part of our evolution. Same as how otters that learn how to use stones to break clams are more likely to survive.
The reason why you all say it is anti-evolutionary is because it is commonly taken that evolution has to be something “directly” biological, physical.
But evolution can also take the mode where intelligence matters and in our case, the more intelligent you are to have created good medication, the more likely you’ll survive to procreate.
this is also actually, in a sense biological, so you see theres no conflict
makes sense Nisroch. I concede.
Medicine is not passed on genetically like instinct is.
I don’t see how that is the same thing.