Replies

If 100 people try to jump a crevasse, and only a few survive, you really can't argue the result is that humans learned to jump further, even though the ones who survive will likely be genetically more capable of jumping a long way.

One thing that both the "C" and "E" side DO agree on is that Humans are more intelligent than any of the OTHER animals, and, by being so, we have had a SURVIVAL advantage over the stronger, faster, hungrier dudes who would just love to munch us into oblivion.

And we probably agree than Einstein was a really smart dude -- running rings around most OTHER Humans, brain wise. Therefore one would think that on an Evolutionary scale, his genes would start to be propagated down the line of his family tree. ('Survival of the Smartest' and all that being the name of the game)

Well..... is that true? ARE his children and grandchildren showing examples of "what we'd expect" if the theory is true?

One thing that both the "C" and "E" side DO agree on is that Humans are more intelligent than any of the OTHER animals, and, by being so, we have had a SURVIVAL advantage over the stronger, faster, hungrier dudes who would just love to munch us into oblivion.

The human level of intelligence is not necessary for survival, and in fact it may eventually result in our extinction.

Bacteria have no intelligence in the usual sense of the word, but they comprise about 90 percent of the cells you walk around with. They have far more survival advantages than the beasts with big brains.

And even within the human community there is no evidence that superintelligent people have more offspring than the average.

And we probably agree than Einstein was a really smart dude -- running rings around most OTHER Humans, brain wise. Therefore one would think that on an Evolutionary scale, his genes would start to be propagated down the line of his family tree. ('Survival of the Smartest' and all that being the name of the game)

Well..... is that true? ARE his children and grandchildren showing examples of "what we'd expect" if the theory is true?

One of Einstein's grandchildren is a quite well-known engineer, but by and large they diodn't reproduce his success. He wasn't outstandingly fecund, either.

As for evolution in humans; in general social conditions at the moment don't seem to be selecting for high intelligence. But there's no reason why they should. There is no reason evolution need necessarily lead to the improvement of the species. If youi select for males who fornicate promiscuously and then abandon their many offspring, by making sure said offspring are raised by the state, then obviously you'll have a population that's 'enriched' in genes for that sort of behavior. We probably became relatively civilized because women favored men who were unlikely to abandon their offspring; invert the selective pressure and we'll move in the opposite direction.

See, you can be completely materialist and abhor promiscuity. :-)