Sorry if these points have been covered, but I haven't had a chance to completely catch up with all the posts in this thread. But from what I've seen so far:
1) It's probably not true that human evolution has slowed down in recent decades, let alone stopped completely. In fact it may have increased tempo. Think about how broader your choice of mate is now compared to even your great-great grandfather. Look at Roosh, for example. When he does have kids their mother will probably be a Polish, Russian or maybe Brazilian girl. Whoever she is she is likely to have quite different genes from the kind of girl than even his great-great grandfather had kids with. Actually, and this is the point, than his great-great grandfather COULD have had kids with. Obviously this is down to the ability to travel, and travel fast, the invention of money as a store of value and other factors you can imagine. Anyway, this creates different gene combinations, than could have occurred in times past. This new combination may have either a good or bad outcome. But whichever outcome it is it provides fuel to evolution to work with. On a much more limited scale the ability to sequence genes and perhaps select partners based on the results also creates combinations that would be less likely otherwise. Also, consider women who select sperm donors. They are obviously very picky and will demand all sorts of things. Tall, smart, X race, no mental or physical disease history etc. This in turn results in a statistical increase in...tall, smart and so on over what could be achieved absent technology. Clearly the last two represent a very small number of births currently. But be patient.
2) It's interesting to debate group vs gene centered evolution vs no evolution at all. My view is that the gene centered view makes the most sense. For a very basic, and as far as I can tell not a controversial/debatable, reason. The "thing" that is replicated when organisms reproduce is not the individual or group, but the gene. With extremely high fidelity. We all seem to be getting carried away emotionally, but the reason most biologists look to the gene is simply for this reason. Not really any philosophical or emotional reason. If individual organisms cloned themselves when reproducing themselves presumably Dawkins book would have been called "The Selfish Organism". But if they cloned themselves we almost certainly wouldn't have advanced life. Absent genes (or rather a generic unit of heredity) the religious critics of evolution would have a point because I don;t think a process that results in complexity can be envisioned if whole organisms simply cloned themselves. The genes clone themselves(99.99..%?), but must "cooperate" with other genes to create agents for their own cause(to replicate).
3) Even considering (2) the gene centered view will certainly yield in some way in times to come. Simply because in time everything yields. My vote for how to progress, how to know which direction to head in, would be to sequence the full genome of, ideally, all living things and then use this information to drill down to what genes really do, when they arose, and how they ineract with one another. Molecular biologists have techniques for "looking back" in the genetic history by comparing the changes in "junk" DNA, that has not been subject to selection pressure, and DNA that has been subject to selection pressure. This supposedly gives an indication of how old a gene is. A biological "carbon dating" I suppose. This, especially the collection bit, sounds extremely boring - a grind - but is probably the best way forward. Having this data will also partially address the criticism of gaps in the fosill record.(Oh, as an aside. The fossil record is incomplete because which organisms fossilise is not completely down to random factors. The organisms that existed in specific kinds of places are much more likely to have left fossils than those in others. Climate at the time of death is only one factor.)
1) It's probably not true that human evolution has slowed down in recent decades, let alone stopped completely. In fact it may have increased tempo. Think about how broader your choice of mate is now compared to even your great-great grandfather. Look at Roosh, for example. When he does have kids their mother will probably be a Polish, Russian or maybe Brazilian girl. Whoever she is she is likely to have quite different genes from the kind of girl than even his great-great grandfather had kids with. Actually, and this is the point, than his great-great grandfather COULD have had kids with. Obviously this is down to the ability to travel, and travel fast, the invention of money as a store of value and other factors you can imagine. Anyway, this creates different gene combinations, than could have occurred in times past. This new combination may have either a good or bad outcome. But whichever outcome it is it provides fuel to evolution to work with. On a much more limited scale the ability to sequence genes and perhaps select partners based on the results also creates combinations that would be less likely otherwise. Also, consider women who select sperm donors. They are obviously very picky and will demand all sorts of things. Tall, smart, X race, no mental or physical disease history etc. This in turn results in a statistical increase in...tall, smart and so on over what could be achieved absent technology. Clearly the last two represent a very small number of births currently. But be patient.
2) It's interesting to debate group vs gene centered evolution vs no evolution at all. My view is that the gene centered view makes the most sense. For a very basic, and as far as I can tell not a controversial/debatable, reason. The "thing" that is replicated when organisms reproduce is not the individual or group, but the gene. With extremely high fidelity. We all seem to be getting carried away emotionally, but the reason most biologists look to the gene is simply for this reason. Not really any philosophical or emotional reason. If individual organisms cloned themselves when reproducing themselves presumably Dawkins book would have been called "The Selfish Organism". But if they cloned themselves we almost certainly wouldn't have advanced life. Absent genes (or rather a generic unit of heredity) the religious critics of evolution would have a point because I don;t think a process that results in complexity can be envisioned if whole organisms simply cloned themselves. The genes clone themselves(99.99..%?), but must "cooperate" with other genes to create agents for their own cause(to replicate).
3) Even considering (2) the gene centered view will certainly yield in some way in times to come. Simply because in time everything yields. My vote for how to progress, how to know which direction to head in, would be to sequence the full genome of, ideally, all living things and then use this information to drill down to what genes really do, when they arose, and how they ineract with one another. Molecular biologists have techniques for "looking back" in the genetic history by comparing the changes in "junk" DNA, that has not been subject to selection pressure, and DNA that has been subject to selection pressure. This supposedly gives an indication of how old a gene is. A biological "carbon dating" I suppose. This, especially the collection bit, sounds extremely boring - a grind - but is probably the best way forward. Having this data will also partially address the criticism of gaps in the fosill record.(Oh, as an aside. The fossil record is incomplete because which organisms fossilise is not completely down to random factors. The organisms that existed in specific kinds of places are much more likely to have left fossils than those in others. Climate at the time of death is only one factor.)
