Originally posted by GeneV And Darwin is by no means the last word. As someone pointed out earlier, science constantly questions itself and its conclusions "evolve."
While evolution for humans may take millions of years, evolution in organisms with shorter life spans and greater reproductive rates can be observed in much shorter spans.
There are many - myself included - who believe human evolution ever since the neolithic cultural explosion has to a good degree transcended biology. In other words, our evolution is cultural, techical, and in structures of consciousness.
Darwinism also is inaccurately boiled down to 'survival of the fittest' - there are many other aspects, e.g. survival of those best cooperating to hold a niche, selection of sexual characteristics, and the fact that multiple genes may influence a given attribute.
Thus, AFAIR there are something like 10 or 12 genes that influence height in humans. In conditions where height is an advantage, only some of these genes need to 'flip' to start producing higher humans -- and these variations are well within the normal distribution of these genes. So let's say height is an advantage... tall people will be healthier etc... though in a society, other mechanisms start to work. A tall man will be a better hunter, say, or a tall woman better at something crucial. These individuals become better prospects as mates, and with time this preference becomes culturally expressed as beauty = tallness. Thus over a relatively short period of time, the distribution of these 10-12 genes in this population will show a shift in frequency of those genes arguing for a tall individual vs. those arguing for a short one.