I agree with blahah that we can not consider one idea to be more viable than another seeing as how evolutionary theory does not predict in which direction a species will evolve nor does it predict how long it will take to reach that point. However, whatever direction our species does evolve in i do not believe that natural selection will be the driving mechanism because as Jerry Coyne said the sheer fact that we are now capable of correcting a child's poor eyesight with a pair of glasses means we are ourselves fixing a trait that would of normally been harshly penalized in the wild. I would speculate that whatever future changes do occur in our DNA would be the result of random genetic drift (or perhaps synthetic biology suggested by Mrs. Zeta which i have yet to look into and will therefore not comment on). This has already recently happened such as some populations being more tolerant to lactose due to a mutation allowing them to digest milk through to adulthood as well as populations with a high frequency of sickle cell being resistant to a very deadly form of malaria. I see the advancement of technology as promoting the evolution of culture rather than gene frequencies and therefore don't consider it to be a contributing factor the the evolution of homo sapiens in general.
