There are some people who, for whatever reasons, argue that society has essentially eliminated selective forces for humans. There are a number of counterarguments, of course.

 

In this recent publication evidence for ongoing evolution is shown based on data from a long-term study (the Framingham heart study) that started 1948.

 

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/10/23/0906199106.abstract

My bet would be that we also see selection for cancer resistance and immune function against viri (since antibiotics have, for the moment, severely attenuated the selective power of bacteria).

For young age cancer, maybe. Most cancer forms are prevalent at higher ages, where there would not be a strong selective advantage.

 

Some interesting predictions from the article

The descendants of these women are predicted to be on average slightly shorter and stouter, to have lower total cholesterol levels and systolic blood pressure, to have their first child earlier, and to reach menopause later than they would in the absence of evolution.

Edited January 19, 201016 yr by CharonY

.... we also see selection for cancer resistance and immune function against viri (since antibiotics have, for the moment, severely attenuated the selective power of bacteria).

 

Don´t confuse natural resistance, with better drug treatments of illness. Our best actual response to their infections, has nothing related to natural selection, it is only due to pharmaceutical development. If there wouldn`t be any development in this area, probably the numbers of dead and spread of any given disease, would be counted as in the past, with great global Pandemias . The avent of better drugs, probably affects natural selection by decreasing the inmune response to those affections, making us more dependent on those, or other drugs used for treatment.