[Response to Jae above:]
I just said that the topic was important because it seems to be one of the most conspicuous of the fruitful areas of disagreement on this site. We all agree on certain basic principles; the leftover stuff we enjoy debating often falls within this topic. (And we enjoy debating it a lot, judging by the number of times variants on the question come up.) Anyhow the simplest way to put the question is: How much genetic (or epigenetic, whatever) change has really taken place? And people take different sides. Patrik for example is generally on the "more change" side of things. (I somehow think Patrik won't mind being the victim of gross oversimplification here, sorry Patrik.) I used to be on the "less change" side of things but am coming around a little bit. In fact it was because of reading threads on this site and giving tentative answers that I decided to take a retirement from the topic to go read a textbook on genetics. (And then come back and
prove everyone wrong for all eternity learn more.)
So I think maybe you are saying that we get a primary evolutionary result and then we tinker with individual situations after we have that. But I think that there are three things going on, not two: one, the primary evolutionary result, three, the individual tinkering, and then in between is two, whatever we can learn about genetics since the beginning of widespread agriculture. We already know that there are some convincing genetic finds that are relevant to the discussion: lactose tolerance, skin color and vitamin D, alcohol tolerance. And I know that you of course are aware of these things. So then the question is: what else can we find? I mean, maybe we'll just find that we can't find any helpful patterns with any reliable degree of certainty that apply to the question of evolution since 10,000 years ago, and then it really would in the end boil down to the two-fold situation instead of the three-fold situation: we'd have the main evolutionary result and then beyond that just the individual tinkering. But we at least have to reach that conclusion first.
Sorry if I'm belaboring something unrelated to your question. You can just let me know where we're missing each other if you want. Paul.