The author states, "the question is no longer simply whether our genes are the source of civilization, but whether they're also its product."

Is this really a new idea to the science community? I don't mean to be some academic evolution snob, but come on...does it make sense that evolution has ceased in humans and that our genes are not still evolving as a result of current social selective pressures?

Our genes shape the way we develop, behave, and interact in our society. In turn, our society is a constant battlefield, a chaotic mix of selective pressure to see who can be reproductively successful: height, sense of humor, intelligence, good looks, and physical symmetrical. In the end, there is no difference between what we call "natural selection" and social selection. The term natural selection was coined by Darwin to describe the selective pressures facing the natural world of animals. For us humans, society is our natural world. It's a jungle out there.

You're right, "civilization" is just another filter applied to the natural occuring variances in genes. It's a misuse of the concept to say that civilization "causes" different genes. It doesn't cause them to exist, but it can cause them to survive in greater numbers.

And no, this is not a new idea. I would be very surprised to hear of any actual teaching that human evolution somehow stopped with the onset of civilization. All the classes I have had and textbooks I've seen have made it clear that human evolution continues, but that since it is a slow process, large changes are not observed in a short time.

Another related idea is that of a kind of meta-evolution, the evolution of ideas and thus of society itself. This kind of change does not require genetic change; instead, it operates against a background of the human brain, which adapts over a much shorter period of time than the genetic code. Ideas are sorted, transfered, and either die out or survive very rapidly. Genetic transfer is not the only way for humans to leave a legacy, and for the species to evolve.

It's not a totally new idea. I also don't think that any serious evolutionary biologist believed that changes in allele frequencies in human populations actually stopped occuring. I think the paper is significant though, in that it confirms that the intuitive idea that changes occurred faster in the harsher pre-civilization world than in the relatively soft world of agrarian society is actually untrue. I'm certain this wasn't really a surprise to everyone though.

As long as you have differences in breeding rates, you'll have evolution. I suspect one of the great evolutionary forces operating today is birth control. Today, if people really don't want kids, they don't have to have them. It makes sense to me that there are personality differences between people who want kids and those that don't; and also that some of those differences will be due to genetic differences. So what are we selecting out of the population via birth control? It will be interesting to see.