"1. Are we still physically evolving (as the "evidence", if true, would logically indicate we would be)?"
Yes we are; see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yzpbDVjO_nw
" b. If so...
(1) HOW, logically, are we still evolving? "
Same way we always did; see below about what evolution IS.
" (2) WHAT, logically, are we involving into? "
There is no set destination for evolution. It doesn't know what it is doing so how human shall evolve is an open discussion. Some genetic trends can be seen. but nothing that would mean H. Sapiens will be anything other than that for a very long time.
"What is/could/must be "next"?"
The only must is based on a combination of various aspects of natural selection; it is a simplification, but what a species evolves into must have more genes from members of that species that are better at passing their genes on than other members of that population.
" (Note, while "next" could involve things like flying or being able to swim underwater without an apparatus, wouldn't the second suggest, logically, a de-volution - i.e., back to the "soup" - and wouldn't, logically, both have to involve some kind of "mating" with another species that can already fly/swim... which I don't deny could occur due to some experiment in a petrie dish but, again, logically, would require intervention by humans, thus, being "artificial" as opposed to natural?)"
So much wrong here; evolution of a species from a terrestrial to aquatic form is not devolution it is evolution. The hippo-like creatures that evolved into whales did not devolve by returning to the water, they evolved to exploit the resources of a particular environment, developing echo-location in the process.
And species rarely acquire major characteristics from genetic transfer from other species. Bacteria do a lot, but dolphins did not get sonar from breeding with bats, or bats wings by mice breeding with birds. Sonar and wings have evolved separately on several occasions as they are biologically possible and survival benefits. However, other hippo-like creatures evolved into hippos, who have characteristics that allow them to survive well in their environment, and some shrew-like creatures became shrews instead of bats, and are just as good in their environment as bats are in theirs.
Finally...
2. If we are still evolving, wouldn't evolving into a species that surpasses the physical body, surpasses being limited by the physical world, its laws and confines... and the requirements and needs of the physical body... be the ultimate station? I mean, logically? Wouldn't evolving to the point where the body doesn't need to eat, sleep, pee, poop, breath air, use apparati to fly, swim, etc., to be limited to a set space... logically, be the ultimate?
Because as far as we know there, there is no selection pressure to acquire such characteristics, and no indication that such would be possible by biological evolution or is even real. Telepathic people don't survive better than non telepathic people, otherwise we would all be telepaths and besides, there's no proof that telepathy exists. Replace 'telepathy' with 'spiritual beings'.
It is nice you are asking constructive questions, but they would be better if you had even the vaguest idea about how evolution works ( as shown by your question about acquiring characteristics by interspecies breeding and devolution ).
And they miss the point; you are accepting Genesis as allegorical accept with regard to human evolution with none evidence to support the differentiation and no need to do so in order to believe in god.
