Your title says “no revolution in genetics” – but there is an ongoing revolution in genetics, since it must incorporate directed mutations, inductive inference and intelligent design in order to deal with cultural evolution – and that is significant update for it. I’m trying to understand how you reconcile these things. Do you think that is not to do with genetics – and is a “separate” issue? If so, to recap, genetics is defined as being the science of heredity in living systems. Understanding how culture varies and recombines is part of its remit – because cultural variation is inherited in many types of living system.

So: cultural evolution has transformed the planet dramatically in the last few thousand years. Cultural variation is persistent enough to last for many thousands of years – in the case of bibles and hieroglyphics. Cultural variation is also widespread among non-human animals – with mating preferences being transmitted via social learning in organisms as lowly as fruit flies. I don’t really see how is this not a big deal. Cultural inheritance is a big deal. John Maynard Smith and Eörs Szathmáry identified it as one of the major transitions in evolution. The topic was hardly understood at all forty years ago. It has been a revolution.

The incorporation of non-nucleic heritable information into genetics seems like a pretty big deal – since it includes cultural variation, non-random mutations and intelligent design.

Of course you could argue that this revolution is not part of genetics – in which case there’s a revolution in memetics – or thereabouts – going on. However you look at it, it’s a pretty big shift for most evolutionary biologists.

J.M.S. scooped Hamilton on his top idea (kin selection) while blocking publication of Hamilton’s own paper on the topic. That’s more than just a “percieved” slight, methinks!

MtDNA Eve and Y chromosomal Adam are surely still perfectly reasonable concepts. Their owners’ success didn’t obliterate all the other culture and genes around at the time – just the other mtDNA Eve and Y chromosomes – but this has long been known.

You don’t need DNA “genes” for genetics. You do, however need some kind of heritable information. Williams (1966) defined sections of these to be “genes”. In that context, genetics would be seen as the science of genes and gene changes.

Which “group selection” are we talking about? The term “group selection” has come to mean several different things. The “new” group selection – the models of which are broadly equivalent to kin selection models – represents a reasonable perspective. I generally agree with S. West, A. Gardner & J. Marshall about its overall utility.

Yes, I know you have been aware of Boyd and Richerson for quite a while. These seem like exciting times for the area, and I’m a little surprised that you haven’t yet been drawn in more.

I am pleased to see that you are reading Boyd, Richerson and Henrich. At some stage you should probably make some posts about their core thesis – that human culture obeys Darwinian rules and coevolves with human genes. This does, after all, represent one of the biggest transitions for evolutionary theory ever.