Personally I think man always had the same intelligence from day one to today .I think the only way to evolve is spiritual not physical . I strongly disagree with the alpha male theory and women only being attracted to men who are able to club another guy over the head . I think women these days are more into who has money and a shot at the big time than joe six pack who drives an 8 yr. old car without any desire to change his lifestyle .
Evolution and Man's Intelligence
..His mission is to proclaim that the ages of the infancy and of the childhood of the human race are past, that the convulsions associated with the present stage of its adolescence are slowly and painfully preparing it to attain the stage of manhood, and are heralding the approach of that Age of Ages when swords will be beaten into plowshares, when the Kingdom promised by Jesus Christ will have been established, and the peace of the planet definitely and permanently ensured. Nor does Bahá'u'lláh claim finality for His own Revelation, but rather stipulates that a fuller measure of the truth He has been commissioned by the Almighty to vouchsafe to humanity, at so critical a juncture in its fortunes, must needs be disclosed at future stages in the constant and limitless evolution of mankind.
(Shoghi Effendi, The Promised Day is Come)
Biological evolution is a slow and painful process. Could it be, however, that we've turned a page? Having finally come far enough to be able to cause our own advancement, instead of waiting for extinction-level-events to drive it for us, perhaps now we are able to evolve in a new way: technologically. Some might complain that this is merely a replacement for biological evolution, but if you look at it from further back, it is just another technique our species uses to survive and flourish, and it came to exist through biological means. So we can think of technology as a new, powerful layer to the human onion - a layer that we ourselves can cause to evolve, within the space of a single generation.
I am very far from a scientific mind, but I was thinking the following anyway: human "intelligence" with the accompanying brain capacity and structure are related to our use of language (the specifically human organ-creating function). Language was probably first developed as a tool or technique for collective survival, but this specific technique proved to be the technique of techniques (as theologian G. Vahanian had it). On a practical way it multiplied man's technical abilities, but in so doing it also created its own realm, its own symbolical and imaginary game, and decisively introduced mankind into it. This self-developing, potentially infinite "logosphere" has become our home at least as much as natural and finite "biosphere" is. Our natural instinct gave way to specifically human desire, the object of which is symbolical or imaginary (or cultural) as well as real (or natural). As we became conscious of our individual mortal self, we also found in the realm of language a thousand things that we came to deem as "better than life": the gods or God, heavenly bliss, love, ideals, virtues, art, and so on.
This human logosphere is certainly not the "goal of evolution" (an oxymoron as Czar pointed out). In a way it is an "accident" as anything else; in another way there is something true in the phrase "man is Nature which has become conscious of itself? (Elisée Reclus); but our logosphere and our interest in it definitely exceed the self-awareness of nature. We belong to the excess of language over nature just as much as we belong to nature.
I strongly disagree with the alpha male theory and women only being attracted to men who are able to club another guy over the head . I think women these days are more into who has money and a shot at the big time than joe six pack who drives an 8 yr. old car without any desire to change his lifestyle .
Is that your concept of an Alpha-type? Physical superiority?
I strongly suspect that just as the Japanese Samurai warrior classes had to evolve in the face of disarmament, to too the Alpha-types had to evolve when brute force became a no-no in civilised society.
Do we continue to evolve?
- What concepts do our minds now grapple with?
- What athletic feats are acheivable by the species?
- How has language and civilization developed?
And yet we don't see global parity in this.
Perhaps we even see a slowing of the process, given that people from the more advantaged portions of the globe expend efforts to increase the opportunities for those not so advantaged. In one respect that's only a reversal of what occured before, since philosophy and mathematics originated in the very areas that we would now deem backward.
Are such distinctions accurate, or are we just fooling ourselves?
Personally I think man always had the same intelligence from day one to today.
We stand on the shoulders of those who went before us. But then is that not also a basic premise of evolution?
I think the only way to evolve is spiritual not physical.
I concur, and yet some would argue that we are outstripping that need.
Time will tell
just a though : More we help ourself with technology ... less we help our brain and body to get the same result without (but well I'm lazy ... that doesn't mean that "easy" is my friend) Also I don't think that human do evoluate in the Intelligence matter, we just know more and younger (INFORMATION is the KEY of all matters)
Personally speaking, I haven't come down from the trees yet... who needs to be a biped anyway?... it don't mean a thing if it ain't got that swing...dobah dobah dobah dobah dobah dobah dobah wow! Ook.
Actually the poor level of anti-evolutionary argument offered by creationists is best illustrated by the fact they seldom, if ever, poke at the really poke-able bits of evolutionary theory, like human intelligence, and instead dispute what are pretty well-founded mechanisms, theories, or methods of dating.
IF being intelligent is such a benefit to survival, given that other creatures were subjected to the same environmental changes, how come we don't have other really intelligent animals?
I mean, the primates, pachyderms and cetaceans are pretty clever, clever enough to be accorded a different level of rights to (say) a cow, in my opinion. But if our sort of intelligence is so good, why don't we have company?
This doesn't neccesarily mean 'we was created', but it does mean the mechanisms behind the evolution of human intelligence are rather disputed.
willy is spot on according to some theories. Human penis size is arguably a result of female preferences over thousands of years (sorry, size DOES matter; look at chimp dicks. That's all we need in terms of length, and they don't need no Viagra as they have bones in them. As there's not much selction pressure on penis evolution OTHER than that coming from the opposite sex, the male penis is a work of female selection). So to some argue is intelligence. Witty, communicative hominids got to breed more. The communicative bit had (evolutionary speaking) unforeseen benefits, as Narkisssos says, as it allowed the transmission of culture and knowledge; other animals learn by doing, we can learn by listening.
So, effectively the male brain is like a peacock tail, according to these theories.
And outside of Jerry Springer et. al. world, females do seem to select for wit and intelligence. Is't 'he makes me laugh' one of the best things a woman can say about a guy? SO even though we have eliminated a lot of selction pressures through technology, we can't (and don't want to) eliminate female selection pressure on the male genome. And that leads on top chnages in the female genome.
Thus the 'there are no sabre-tooth tigers to cull the weak any longer' theories don't apply. Brains may have helped avoid smilodons in the past, but we didn't evolve brains to escape predators.
We evolved them to get laid.
So modern technology and society might allow for un-evolutionary people to breed, but postive beneficial evolution will still take place theough selection for intelligence.
It's just we don't need to be big and strong to survive anymore; clever is still as useful as it ever was. And now we are at a stage where we might decide the next evolutionary stage, even if it one through technological intevention. Who needs natural selction when you have un-natural selection down to the level of base pairs?
Personally I think man always had the same intelligence from day one to today .
heathen, could you define your statements to avoid vaugeness that robs them of meaning? By man, do you mean modern Homo sapiens? Homo neanderthal? Homo erectus? Or are you simply dismissing the
alpha male types, which make up 1 out of every 22 males
Do you have figures for this? I'm not disputing the figure, I'm interested in getting more.
Abaddon --- If anyone here is vague it's gotta be you buddy . Just where do you come up with this penis theory of yours ? What I said was very much a creationist statement , I've said countless times on the board I don't believe the evolution of man theories . Man could not adapt to his surroundings so he made the environment to his liking . It's always been that way . IMO
I'm just sitting here thinking what about homosexuals who like big penis ? I suppose your theory doesn't account for that? LOL
Given the ability of far less intelligent animals (including far less intelligent supposed "hominids") to survive and reproduce well, what evolutionary process would cause our present level and type of intelligence to ever be reached?
I don't know, Hoob, but I'm impresed with how many edits you needed for that post