Which is not the same as learning more (so, yes, earn that second Masters degree) Why our minds have probably evolved as far as they can go
It's interesting that the author points to the use of Ritalin as proof that our minds can not grow. The reasoning seems odd to me. They say that Ritalin improves the concentration of those who suffer from disorders but, because it does not help people who are considered normal, that is proof that our minds are at their peak. I don't have the expertise to actually argue that point, but it just seems weak to me.
The article suggests that very intelligent people tend to have negative issues as a result, but that's not always the case. And since there are incredibly smart people who are also well adjusted, it would seem that one evolutionary advance would simply be for there to be more people like that.
Meh...the author presumes that our brains are evolved in the first place. Since I am an "intelligent design" guy I don't really feel the article applies to me but to play devil's advocate, if we really were evolved, why would we consider this iteration (if you will) of human kind to be the pinnacle of the evolutionary scale? Evolution is all about natural adaptation to environment and we as humans are required to absorb and process more information more quickly than ever before. Why would not the human brain adapt to doing this more effectively and efficiently? What or who is to say we’ve even topped the physiological curve? What if our anatomy were to change, body chemistry, etc. After all if I could grow lungs to breathe air in place of gills, then why not have a super mind that allows me to read and comprehend things faster? Why not a brain that allows me to process cognitive thoughts 2 or 3 or more at a time rather than just the 1? The argument would be that we would then be socially unacceptable thus we cannot evolve? If that were so then how did the first land walker convince everyone else that the air was so much more neat-o than the water? But like I said I am a creationist and do not believe that our predecessors were any less capable or intelligent than we are today. I think the reason we have innovated so much so quickly has more to do with the compounding effect of knowledge than it does “oh, wow…look how much smarter I am than my great, great granddad”. But that’s just me.
To contend with your devil's advocate argument, it would not appear that the author is contending that the present state of humanity is the pinnacle of human evolution. The author, rather, appears to be arguing that it does not appear that there is any reason to believe that incremental increases in intelligence will emerge. The author leaves open the possibility of a radical adaptation, but there would be no way to predict that anyhow. It's all about reproduction and natural selection. If a mutation does not get passed on through reproduction, it will die. The point the author is making is that the disadvantages associated with higher levels of intelligence make reproduction less likely. Either you will find a way to get killed through distracted driving, or your personal quirks will make you undesirable to most individuals. Furthermore, intelligence is not the only factor in reproduction. Physical attractiveness, indicative of health, virility, and strength, all are factors. A weak, unattractive, socially inept individual of extreme intelligence isn't as likely to reproduce effectively as a strong, attractive, socially adept individual of high intelligence. Natural selection favors the well-rounded candidate. Therefore, if the trade-off for higher intelligence is a loss of other skills, it may not be beneficial for reproduction. It's not a matter of social acceptance. It's a matter of reproduction. If it keeps you from finding a mate, it won't stay around long.
You will always have outliers. If, however, on average, the trade-off for significantly higher intelligence is a loss in other skills, then it isn't very likely that natural selection will reward significantly higher intelligence. If you look at the world, however, high intelligence doesn't seem to be a reproduction-enhancing factor. In fact, the more educated you are (which is not always a good marker of intelligence, but it is decent on average), the less likely you are to have a large family. The less-than-intelligent among us often have multiple children with similarly less-than-intelligent individuals. If anyone has not seen the film Idiocracy, I would suggest renting it to look at a scenario in which intelligence dwindles due to differences in reproductive rates. It's a farce, and it does a very good job at being a farce, but it's quite scary to think about the possibilities.
Ha, Stefan, when I was reading your comment about how education and family size are negatively correlated, I was wondering whether a mention of Idiocracy would follow. I have a friend who jokes that it's the scariest documentary film ever!
In a roundabout way you simply reinforce my disbelief in evolution, if a land walker developed lungs how did then he convince a mate to carry on this adaptation? The mutation would die...(but I digress). What I am arguing (again I don't believe this) is what why would the catalyst for sexual acceptance for a mate change so radically than from our ancestors? In otherwords, what convinced the fish in the water to get it on with a land based creature to carry the future mutations forward? What part of that dynamic would be so radically different? Unless of course one believes in mass mutation. Oh and Idiocracy is almost Biblical truth...been in a Wal-Mart lately?
To be fair, I don't think any evolutionary biologist would argue that a sea creature would evolve into a land creature in a single mutation or generation. More likely, the contention would be that the sea creature's lineage had a series of mutations that resulted in an amphibious creature. Over time, some of these creatures moved primarily to land, and the mutations that were advantageous for land dwelling at the expense of sea dwelling were preserved through natural selection and others were either eliminated or resulted in creatures primarily going into the sea. It wouldn't be a matter of a fish mating with a dog. It would likely be a slightly different "fish" mating with another "fish." Over time, the mutation proliferates, and you get a population of amphibian creatures. These mate with each other, and over time you have some of them with mutations that favor land dwelling. Also, you can't apply cognitive reasoning to these kind of animals. These primitive creatures would have simply been responding to stimuli. "Looks like a fish, go for it." You can see the effects of cognition on mating among humans. Mating for humans isn't just about physical health and proximity. We have issues of language, culture, intelligence, personal interests, religious beliefs, etc. that make a difference on mating patterns. That being said, I'm not saying I fully accept this thesis, but I do think it is important to represent it fairly. I know in discussions of evolutionary theory, strawmen are more often attacked than the actual tenets of the theory. (And, as a side note, I'm sure NO ONE expected this post from an LU grad...)
You don't win arguments by attacking strawmen. All I did was to attempt to fairly represent the position.
Actually, that's how most of these arguments are won. I believe in creation, but I absolutely do not identify as a creationist since over 9/10 of everything they say in their literature and websites is complete hogwash. They are more like conspiracy theorists, if anything. Likewise, I'm not sure if you've been to a skeptic website lately, but they are so riddled with strawman arguments that they partially responsible for convincing me that God actually does exist.
Absolutely true, so a gradual evolution would make carrying the mutation forward. So again, why would the author then assume that a gradual mutation would not be carried forward in this case? It's fairly presumptive, that's my point and I think you just helped prove it. (note I still don't believe this stuff but logic would dictate that the forces that carried mutations forward historically would like do so in the future as well)
Gradual evolution? I once read on a skeptic website that if fossil evidence showed gradual successive changes to a species over time that it would actually cotradict the theory of evolution (somehow ) and that the disjointed pattern (see: punctuated equilibrium for more info) found in the actual fossil record is exactly what one would expect in an evolutionary model. So even if the fossil record doesn't show evolution, it still proves that evolution is true and of course Richard Dawkins claims that relying on the fossil record is a strawman argument from creationists since he believes that the fossil record is not at all necessary to prove evolution. This after only a century of the world being beaten over the head by Dawkin's predecessors with fossils which "prove" the "fact" of evolution...
I was mostly referring to individual characteristics. Even in a punctuated equilibrium model, the hypothesis would not be from fish to dog. Furthermore, the genetics behind an adaptation could partially be in place without being displayed fully (genotype vs. phenotype). Also, genetic mutations could provide secondary advantages that encourage their proliferation initially while offering a stronger advantage at a later point after the mutation reaches a point at which it makes a significant difference. ----- As a side note, this may be an explanation for the persistence of homosexuality in human behavior. See: This study suggests the possibility of underlying genetic factors that both increase the incidence of homosexuality in men and fecundity in women. This could explain why homosexuality remains even as homosexuals are less likely to reproduce. (And I know this is another hot-button issue, but it touches a similar scenario.) ----------- The probably I find with evolutionary theory is not in natural selection. There is no reason to reject natural selection as a process. Simply put, the most suited individuals are most likely to survive and to reproduce. I think one of the best argument against atheistic evolution is "irreducible complexity." It's not hard to imagine beneficial genetic mutations, but it is much harder to explain how a mitochondrion emerges, how eukaryotic cells originated, etc. I think it is possible that God could have used evolutionary processes, but it is difficult to explain how inorganic material could yield organisms without intervention.
The point is that the mutations that would yield higher intelligence also yield major negatives that inhibit reproduction. Reproduction is the vehicle of natural selection, so if reproduction is inhibited, the mutation does not "stick."
Is THAT why blondes have more fun? Seriously though...I get your point but saying we are at the verge where one more iteration would have serious drawbacks because of intelligence vs. some physical change is just awfully...well... presumptive if you believe in this stuff.
