And similar genetic studies work on other species so that's even more evidence it's reasonable generic a technique.
If you stand by your assertion, please provide evidence.
Those would be some natural selection processes, and they don’t apply to us in any significant way since.. I would say the agricultural revolution at least, but maybe even sooner (the very reason we can “feed” such a hungry organ as our brains is due to our efficiency at hunting/processing food even back then thanks to tools/fire)
That's culture, not evolution. It's absolutely natural (in every sense of the word) and there are biological components.
Outside of that, though, there is also physical natural selection that occurs. Human "hardware" is evolving along with the "software".
But the point is, evolution is not a “thing”, it is an observation explained by selection pressures, an emergent property if you will. The characteristics/statistics for people are way different than any other wild animal, so I think it is fair to attribute that to society vs nature.
There are many modern scientists who don't understand evolution.
A. I doubt there are many who don't understand natural selection and/or want to talk about evolution without understanding it
B. I excluded those people explicitly, so what's your point?
Of course, even for this definition human evolution is absolutely not "completed" at the moment, since however fit/adapted homo sapiens were to the conditions of Africa 200 000 years ago, the last few thousand years have seen enormous changes in our environment to which we definitely haven't adapted yet in the insignificantly small span of 100 or so generations; If the major changes in our social and physical environment would stop today, perhaps we might reach some evolutionary "stable spot" in a 100 000 years (or much more), but right now we haven't even fully adapted to agriculture, much less modern conditions.