As scientific knowledge advances, and we uncover more and more of how our genetic coding works, the temptation to tamper will be irresistible. First we will seek to eradicate genetic disorders, such as sickle cell anemia, Downs syndrome, etc. Then we will focus on enhancements. As a race we will become our own designers, at least so far as our progeny is concerned. Then the term "homo evolutus" or something similar might become the chosen designator.

It's interesting to note that the human brain has been undergoing a reduction in size over the past 20,000 years.

[scientificamerican.com]

Well, when we can no longer make viable offspring with homo sapiens then we'll be another species. But if you think in terms of dog breeds, we can do a lot to our species that would make someone unrecognizable to someone else. We tend to breed to our life styles(larger, stronger athletes tend to have athletic kids, office workers tend to raise little office workers, etc), who knows what to lead to? We have people over seven feet and my exwife is barely 5'.

In diversity there is strength. I don't know a whole hell of a lot, but I learned the hell out of that.

Since Gould was my adviser, I better freakin' know about punctuated equilibrium. I think it's more likely that we are on a rapid extinction course, hence are not deserving of a new species name.

I feel that we're always progressively evolving, even if in minor ways. A sudden leap in speciation does occur, however, in the midst of serious environment change. There may be mild stagnation in mutations if the environment stays at an equilibrium; there is always just enough food, shelter, and no disease, natural disaster, or predators hunting them. Our planet is chaotic, however, and we are always underfire from one thing or the next, and so we are always evolving; whether it be better sight, stronger bodies, or the ability to get absolutely wasted without getting a hangover. If you want to see some effects of our technology growth, then look at that sudden explosion of autism, adhd, and insomnia. Barraging the brain (a device that verdicts our conscious experience through chemical and ELECTRICAL reactions) with extremely large amounts of electromagnetic radiation won't do anything at all, right?
And as for subspecies, that won't happen until society regularly engineers genetics, creating a literal new breed of humans, which will most likely happen in the next decade. The same goes with making androids; when a homosapien is so engrained with technology that it's identity as a human is questionable, it too will begin a new species. Surprisingly, modern day bio engineering is getting really big, alas the commercial CRISPR. Side by side with body hackers, who can send their own bodies vitals to a phone as metadata or turn off lights with a thought. Even on a smaller scale, everytime we set our phones calendar, send a text, or just ask the internet a question, we are entrusting another aspect of our lives to technology. So, if we don't all die soon and the Moores law hold up, then we're gonna be in for a weird, crazy, beautifully scientific future.

Good question. Only know a little. Otherwise have no idea. Your homo evolutus mention reminded me of this on homo loquax.

[neh.gov]

There is a difference between adapting and evolving. Base pair mutation rate is not at threshold of speciation, and you can still mix, but frankly Science would have it’s hands tied to claim a subspecies without some serious questions about race, class, and culture.

That said, selective mating through the internet will increase exposure on larger scales than before but humans tend to absorb large searches of “tribes” and collectively advance versus other species that differentiate in niches. At least that’s how I read the evidence.

Maybe after the Academy Awards. First things first.

Not a bad theory, good explanation to fit the facts. However, it doesn't quite dove-tail with the "molecular clock."

Hmm this is a concept I am not familiar with. But I have heard that humans are evolving faster than ever before, so you raise an interesting point.

I think to classify our species as a new subspecies would require a genetic mutation. I think that as far as technology goes, we are still a tool-using species. Why would the level of sophistication of the tools change us as a species?