Please remember what you said in one of your earliest posts on this topic.
I call B.S. on that definition. The probability of random mutations accumulating in a population to the point of creating a significant change in allele frequencies without a selective force of some kind approaches 0. Sure, random mutations occur, but they can just as easily occur in the opposite direction barring some sort of "slope" to genetic drift... If there is such a slope, then it is a selective force, though perhaps not classic natural selection. Evolution does indeed require a selective force, which traditionally has been natural selection. If you are going to say there are other selective forces, that's fine, but pure generation of mutations (genetic drift) without selection will not bring about a statistically important number of significant changes in frequency, and thus is not evolution. It is just mutational/evolutionary noise.
You asserted that: 1) The definition of evolution accepted by all evolutionary biologists is "B.S." 2) Evolution "does indeed require a selective force". 3) Some nonsense about "statistical importance" (which has no bearing on whether evolution is happening) and "slope" to genetic drift driving mutations (you have repeatedly conflated genetic drift and mutation, but they are separate processes).
My point throughout this thread has been that your 1st and 2nd assertions are wrong. Evolution does not require a selective force, and non-selective forces, by themselves, cause evolution. The post that started this whole thing claimed that "acquisition of mutations is not evolution." That is just plain wrong. Mutation changes allele frequencies in a population, which is evolution. That is the only reason I made my original post on the matter. Many people think that evolution is only "natural selection," but that just isn't true.
Now, you seem to have abandoned the above positions with your latest post. Instead, you now want to argue about the relative effects of genetic drift in humans, and the human evolutionary rate. I assume this means you have finally agreed that selection is not required for evolution, which is the only point I've been trying to make. If you want to call that an "interpretation," fine, but it is accepted evolutionary theory. Multiple posts here, from you and others, have claimed that selection is "required" for evolution. That, and only that, is what I have been refuting. I have never once made any statement about the relative importance of drift, mutation, natural selection, or anything else in humans.
To that point, though, you might be interested to read about neutral and nearly neutral mutations. Even in large populations, there is some evidence that substantial portions of the genome can be mostly under the control of mutation and drift. And as your quoted Wikipedia article goes on to note, "When the allele frequency is very small, drift can also overpower selection—even in large populations." So yes, drift can matter, even in large populations.
And I really don't know where you got the notion that I've taken "one course in population genetics" and now consider my understanding "infallible." I have repeatedly encouraged you to read a text on population genetics so that you better understand what you are talking about; I still encourage you to do so. But frankly, when people claim that evolution "requires" natural selection, realizing why that is completely wrong doesn't take a deep knowledge of pop. gen. It only requires an understanding of the modern definition of biological evolution.
Anyway, I hope you now understand that the definition of evolution I have been using is not "B.S.," that evolution does not "require a selective force" of any kind, and that non-selective forces, such as mutation and drift, also cause evolution. Evolution is easily one of the most misunderstood major scientific theories, even among people who "believe" in it and think they understand it. One of the most common mistakes is to think that evolution is only "natural selection," and that everything else is just "noise" (as you and several others have put it). I have tried to explain why that view is incorrect.
As to the rates of human evolution and the relative importance of selective and non-selective factors in human populations, that is not my area of expertise in biology. I will have to leave the topic of human evolution to others. I am sure you are correct, though, that modern transportation has (and will have) dramatic consequences for genetic structure in human populations.