> Cultural and biological evolution are intimately intertwined.

I'm still not convinced, until humans become subject to genetic engineering, or until we change the climatic conditions (or amount of nuclear radiation) on our planet in such a large scale that certain ethnicities or individuals have a better chance to survive than others due to their genetic make-up.

> we eat much better than our ancstors. As a result, average height, weight
> and longevity are increased.

As I said, the reasons for the height (and thus weight) increase are still being debated by scientists. The increased longevity is due to better nutrition and medical care, yes.

> Culture affects biology.

Yes, but you were not talking about biology in general but about biological evolution (= change of genetic make-up). That's not affected by the cultural evolution unless we start to use genetic engineering to manipulate the genetic make-up of human beings.

> what would you call the cybernetic creatures we are aleady evolving into?

Pure cultural evolution. After all, the child of parents with hip replacements doesn't get born with a titanium hip, does it?

> Cell phones and other devices, instant access to the web and all its supplemental information?

Cultural evolution.

> we are changing, physically, mentally, and socially.

Our genetic make-up doesn't change for those reasons, so they don't constitute biological evolution.

> A good example would be yellow perch in Europe and North America. So little
> divergence there (one extra spine on the dorsal fin of the European variant) that
> they can readily interbred. Yet they were seperated since the time the two continent
> touched. In that same time span, two hominid species bred back into Homo Sapiens
> (or disappeared). We just happen to be one of the more changable species.

The fact that other species have changed very slowly or not at all doesn't prove that our biological evolution accelerates. It could very well be decelerating.

> Remember its not just natural selection and cultural evolution.
> There's also random genetic drift, mutation

Again: It was me who mentioned mutation first as a factor for biological evolution. And I also mentioned sexual selection as a factor for biological evolution. So yes, it's really just biological evolution (with factors like natural selection, sexual selection, mutation, genetic drift and others) and cultural evolution, nothing else. You seem to be slightly confused about the concepts when you don't group forces like natural selection, genetic drift and mutation together in the same group called biological evolution.

> population mating structures influencing evolution(although the last could be
> lumped in with culture)

If it has influence on the genetic make-up, it's biological evolution. If it hasn't, it's cultural evolution.

> I coming to believe that evolution may be more proactive then previously thought.

Cultural evolution yes, biological evolution less so.

> That oganisms change in order to better suit their habitats.
> Not selected, change suited to improve.

If the habitat changes (climatic change or whatever), the individuals that are adapted worse die before they get the chance to reproduce (= natural selection). The remaining individuals with the suited genetic make-up continue to reproduce and thus re-increase the population, which then as a result has a slighty different genetic make-up than before. There's no proactivity about that change. It's all about selection.