In response to this, I spent some time this morning looking into the differences between our cells and that of insects. It was an interesting exploration. It is currently important because it is promising utility in the manufacturing. The biggest difference talked about in this news is the tendency of insect cells to be infected by a type of virus called baculoviridae. This along with a lower metabolism can make insect cells useful for the industrial production of amino acids and mammalian proteins. But the point I am making here is that the differences are subtle ones rather than huge. All multicellular organisms have the same kind of cell called eukaryotic and the differences between all the multicellular species have to do with interactions and specializations.
What does this have to do with the topic of human evolution? I am drawing an analogy here. Just as the changes in individual cells hasn’t been the focus for the evolution of multicellular organisms in the last 3 billion years, changes in individual human beings hasn’t been the focus of the evolution of the homo sapiens species in modern human civilization. To be sure there have been subtle changes in the last couple million years, supporting the importance of language for example. And such subtle changes are enough to transform our lives radically by enabling us to take specialized roles in a community for the development of specialized skills and technology.
Nothing could be further from the truth to say that human evolution has practically halted. Quite the contrary the changes in human existence keep coming faster and faster. But it is primarily social rather than individual. If anything the condition of individual human biology has been far from promising, but we are compensating for such problems with technology. But again the analogy with the development of multicellular organisms shows that this is tried and true part of the process of evolution as our individual cells have become less and less capable of living independently as well.
I would certainly agree that we have no call to think that biology can replace sociological and psychological sciences as some recent trends might look like they are moving in that direction. I agree that this sort of reductionism is a serious mistake.
I can understand how many in the softer sciences sociology and psychology might long for the concrete solid ground of the physical sciences so they can stop blowing in the wind according to the most recent faddish paradigm. AND perhaps their investigations of the connections with biology will help them find that solid ground. But I really do not think that reducing sociology to biology is the answer in the long run.