Interesting, but I'm not at all I follow their logic. How did they determine these changes were advantageous? In fact, why the hell would any sort of change in the modern world have a greater chance over others? The means in which we keep people with "defects" alive means their changes will likely be spread just as much as advantageous ones. I can believe that humans genes are rapidly changing, but when I mentioned "evolution" I was talking specifically advantageous changes, and while the research might show for certain more rapid changes, I'm not sure how it concluded that changes are for the better. I think a lot of traditional thinking with human evolution doesn't apply to the modern world, such as advantageous changes having a greater chance of spreading over negative changes.