Notices
Results 1 to 33 of 33

Thread: If intelligence is strongly inherited...

  1. #1 If intelligence is strongly inherited... 
    Forum Ph.D. Raziell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    927
    Wouldnt that mean that a culture with a perfect equality to the value of men and women would have a strong evolutionary advantage to cultures that treats women poorly and oppressed as slaves and baby factories?

    Im sorry if this thread may seem racist or sexist and so on, im merely trying to point out something. So i am being very blunt about this.

    Lets say a religion, country or culture in some way only keeps women for reproduction and slaves. With no other purpose. Wouldnt that mean that in comparison to an opposite side that has 100% equality then have stunning 50% bigger potential for smarter offspring on an average?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    If intelligence were largely determined by genetics, i.e. it was inheritable, it wouldn't make a blind bit of difference whether women were kept as slaves, or were in complete control, or somewhere in between. All of those varied conditions are environmental and would not influence the heritable intelligence.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3 Re: If intelligence is strongly inherited... 
    Forum Cosmic Wizard spuriousmonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,191
    Quote Originally Posted by Raziell
    Wouldnt that mean that a culture with a perfect equality to the value of men and women would have a strong evolutionary advantage to cultures that treats women poorly and oppressed as slaves and baby factories?
    ´

    I don't see the logic.

    Why would intelligence difference equal oppression?
    "Kill them all and let God sort them out."

    - Arnaud Amalric

    http://spuriousforums.com/index.php
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4 Re: If intelligence is strongly inherited... 
    gc
    gc is offline
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    210
    Quote Originally Posted by Raziell
    Lets say a religion, country or culture in some way only keeps women for reproduction and slaves. With no other purpose. Wouldnt that mean that in comparison to an opposite side that has 100% equality then have stunning 50% bigger potential for smarter offspring on an average?
    Being locked up as a slave would not affect a woman's genes, and therefore not affect her offspring.
    However, there is a way that it could affect evolution. If in a free country, men and women are free to choose their mates, they could choose the more intelligent ones (and more intelligent ones may also have a better chance of survival), so more "intelligent" genes get passed on to the next generation....
    If women were slaves and men and women do not choose their mates, then there would be no sexual selection, and intelligent people would not reproduce more often and there would be no evolution of intelligence. Of course, if there is still a better chance of intelligent people surviving to the age of reproduction then they would reproduce more often, and intelligence would evolve.
    Is this what you meant?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Ph.D. Raziell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    927
    So if a woman that is extremely smart has offspring with a man that is also extremely smart. Has an offspring...

    then in an alternate reality this man choose a dumb subdued shell of a woman as his wife, then the offspring would be equally smart as scenario 1?


    Edit: If evolution dont take changes like intelligence and physique into account when making offspring, how exactly does evolution go forward at all? If this is true it means no traits parents makes after birth is passed on either? Im confused cause this would imply evolution would just stop? Why doesent the body "remember" changes and pass them on?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    gc
    gc is offline
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    210
    Quote Originally Posted by Raziell
    then in an alternate reality this man choose a dumb subdued shell of a woman as his wife, then the offspring would be equally smart as scenario 1?
    That all depends on what you mean by "dumb".
    Do you mean she is genetically dumb? In other words, that she is lacking a gene that makes a person intelligent.
    Or do you mean she is dumb because she is uneducated, but has the same genes as any other intelligent woman?

    If it is the latter then the offspring would be equally smart (ignoring the influence of environment on intelligence - in other words assuming that they were raised in the same way as scenario 1).
    If it is the former, then the offspring would not be as smart.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard spuriousmonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,191
    since when can either gender reproduce without the other? It makes no sense to abuse one gender evolutionary speaking, unless it is an EES.
    "Kill them all and let God sort them out."

    - Arnaud Amalric

    http://spuriousforums.com/index.php
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Ph.D. Raziell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    927
    Quote Originally Posted by spuriousmonkey
    since when can either gender reproduce without the other? It makes no sense to abuse one gender evolutionary speaking, unless it is an EES.
    I love and respect women. I thought this would prove people who dont, are inferior and only hurting themselves. But its just a personal and cultural view and no science to it other than the female sex being physically weaker than right?

    I just really hate people that looks at women as the "weaker" sex. They are only physically weaker, and that they are enslaved and exploited by this alone shows how "animalistic" our race is to this day, yet we call ourself "Civilized"

    And im talking of the majority of the world not the small western population living in a dream world.

    Again, since my thoughts were wrong it doesent really matter.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard spuriousmonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,191
    I have no clue what you are talking about.
    "Kill them all and let God sort them out."

    - Arnaud Amalric

    http://spuriousforums.com/index.php
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Raziell
    If this is true it means no traits parents makes after birth is passed on either? .....Why doesent the body "remember" changes and pass them on?
    Teh body does not remember changes and pass them on. Changes occur through mutations to the genes. Some are favourable and are more likely ot be passed on. Others are unfavourable and are more likely to lead to an early death of the organism, possibly before birth.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Ph.D. Raziell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    927
    Quote Originally Posted by spuriousmonkey
    I have no clue what you are talking about.
    Ill try simplify, as ive obviously misunderstood a pretty important thing in evolution

    For an organism to mutate, it needs a stimulant to make it do so right? I thought evolution was a basic cause and effect system. But if manipulating our organism dont cause mutations, what does? Mutations dont just happen by itself with no reason or no cause.

    Edit:

    I thought for example, that the reason the body changed to bipedalism was alot of travel. Travel was the cause and the body mutates accordingly for survival.

    By this logic, a person that execrices alot then have children that do the same - would over time change the genetics to make the offspring stronger. Because that would be the effect from the cause. And the same with intelligence, smart people with smart children that continues to use their brain to the limit would get smarter children after some generations.

    If humanity dedicated their life to COMPLETE APATHY, it would make no sense at all that the body would mutate from inaction into a direction of action.

    Advanced as life is, it cant defy physics so that something can be changed by nothing right?

    Sorry for my ramblings just hoped someone could clear this up for me.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard spuriousmonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,191
    Quote Originally Posted by Raziell
    Quote Originally Posted by spuriousmonkey
    I have no clue what you are talking about.
    Ill try simplify, as ive obviously misunderstood a pretty important thing in evolution

    For an organism to mutate, it needs a stimulant to make it do so right? I thought evolution was a basic cause and effect system. But if manipulating our organism dont cause mutations, what does? Mutations dont just happen by itself with no reason or no cause.
    yes they do. Mutations happen all the time.

    No1 reason for mutation to just happen is that you can't replicate DNA without introducing errors, or as you know them: mutations.
    "Kill them all and let God sort them out."

    - Arnaud Amalric

    http://spuriousforums.com/index.php
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Ph.D. Raziell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    927
    Quote Originally Posted by spuriousmonkey

    yes they do. Mutations happen all the time.

    No1 reason for mutation to just happen is that you can't replicate DNA without introducing errors, or as you know them: mutations.
    But if mutations are errors doesent that mean that evolution is extremely random? Because then survival is based on... well, randomness...

    Evolutionchat:

    Lifeform A: Muahaha, my new trait gave me a 17th LIMB! Bow before me!
    Lifeform B: Well i got myself fins, so i can swim now. So in your face.
    Lifeform C: I got nothing Same old as my predecessors.
    Lifeform A: Sucks to be you...
    Lifeform D: TREMBLE PITIFULL BEINGS! Ive gotten telekinesis, new bainfunctions that puts your pathethic intelligence in the shadows. And a poisious fur with spikes that instantly kills anything that would dare touch me!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,229
    But if mutations are errors doesent that mean that evolution is extremely random?
    Mutation is random, evolution is not. The environment drives selection.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Ph.D. Raziell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    927
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    But if mutations are errors doesent that mean that evolution is extremely random?
    Mutation is random, evolution is not. The environment drives selection.
    So the enviroment dont cause the mutations, but mutations will be either good or bad compared to the enviroment. And traits that makes you survive other species and the enviroment both will simply lead to succesfull reproduction.

    Have i finally understood it now then or still wrong?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Professor marcusclayman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,702
    Maintaining one's freedom from oppression takes a lot of brain power. The threat of oppression allows all of us to develop individuality and intelligence plays a big role in the life long process.

    We are biologically different, equality is an ideal, and needs to be better defined in a physical sense before we can say "Equality makes people 50% better"
    Dick, be Frank.

    Ambiguity Kills.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    171
    Mutations are random, evolution is not random though. Random mutations leads to differing traits, some of these traits will be beneficial, some will be detrimental, and most will be neutral.

    Natural selection selects for the beneficial traits, the beneficial traits are those that allow the organism to survive better.

    For example, a stronger faster cheetah is better able to catch prey so it will do better then the slower cheetah.

    A detrimental mutation, like down syndrome, would be selected against in natural selection, so the organism will likely not survive well, if at all, and will be much less likely to produce offspring.

    Most mutations are neutral however and don't provide survival benefits one way or another.

    The mutations are random, but evolution is not, because it selects for the best suited traits to the environment.

    Lifeform A might be will suited to a climbing environment, because with 17 limbs, he has lots of things to grip with, but would need lots of food to sustain it's bulk.
    Lifeform B would be better suited to survive in water
    Lifeform C is just kind of there
    Lifeform D would likely be highly favored for, because with the poisonous spikes, few things if any would be able to eat it, in an animal telekinesis would be able to collect fruit from high in a tree, so it would be better able to survive as well.

    All of the organisms you created would thrive in one environment, but be unfavorable in another. This is how evolution works and why it appears things "adapt" to their environments.

    http://yalemedicine.yale.edu/ym_au02/findings.html

    "Members of this family carry a genetic mutation that causes high bone density....Family members, according to the investigators, have bones so strong they rival those of a character in the 2000 movie Unbreakable. “If there are living counterparts to the [hero] in Unbreakable, who is in a terrible train wreck and walks away without a single broken bone, they’re members of this family,” said Lifton. “They have extraordinarily dense bones and there is no history of fractures. These people have about the strongest bones on the entire planet.” "

    This is a mutation that was completely random, nothing would have spurred it to happen, it just happened. However that is a favorable mutation in the eyes of evolution because stronger bones leads to less bone breakage, and breaking bones is a common cause for death in the animal kingdom.
    Always minimize the variables.

    Semper Paratus
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,229
    Quote Originally Posted by Raziell
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    But if mutations are errors doesent that mean that evolution is extremely random?
    Mutation is random, evolution is not. The environment drives selection.
    So the enviroment dont cause the mutations, but mutations will be either good or bad compared to the enviroment. And traits that makes you survive other species and the enviroment both will simply lead to succesfull reproduction.

    Have i finally understood it now then or still wrong?
    It is obviously a bit more complicated than that (better explained above), but you got it, well done. :wink:
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Ph.D. Raziell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    927
    It is obviously a bit more complicated than that (better explained above), but you got it, well done. :wink:
    Yeah just read through Haasums post, getting the grip of it Kinda funny coincidense with the movie unbreakable as an example as i saw it not long ago. Feel kinda stupid with my first post leading to all this but thanks for helping me understand.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,229
    Yeah just read through Haasums post, getting the grip of it Kinda funny coincidense with the movie unbreakable as an example as i saw it not long ago. Feel kinda stupid with my first post leading to all this but thanks for helping me understand.
    Hey man, we all have to learn something the first time. Kudos for making the effort. :wink:
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    171
    Quote Originally Posted by Raziell
    It is obviously a bit more complicated than that (better explained above), but you got it, well done. :wink:
    Yeah just read through Haasums post, getting the grip of it Kinda funny coincidense with the movie unbreakable as an example as i saw it not long ago. Feel kinda stupid with my first post leading to all this but thanks for helping me understand.
    Glad to have been able to help, and as Kalster said, everyone has to start somewhere. The fact that you had a question and sought knowlege about it is a good thing. Remember, the only stupid questions are the ones you don't ask.
    Always minimize the variables.

    Semper Paratus
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,036
    Quote Originally Posted by Raziell
    Quote Originally Posted by spuriousmonkey
    I have no clue what you are talking about.
    Ill try simplify, as ive obviously misunderstood a pretty important thing in evolution

    For an organism to mutate, it needs a stimulant to make it do so right? I thought evolution was a basic cause and effect system. But if manipulating our organism dont cause mutations, what does? Mutations dont just happen by itself with no reason or no cause.
    Think of the rudder on a boat. The boat is steered only by the resistance the rudder creates. It does nothing positive to move it in that direction.

    Mutations are purely random, but selection kills all the random ones that don't move in the right direction.



    Edit:

    I thought for example, that the reason the body changed to bipedalism was alot of travel. Travel was the cause and the body mutates accordingly for survival.
    The need to walk upright killed all the non-bipedal mutations, leaving only the bipedal ones alive.


    By this logic, a person that execrices alot then have children that do the same - would over time change the genetics to make the offspring stronger. Because that would be the effect from the cause. And the same with intelligence, smart people with smart children that continues to use their brain to the limit would get smarter children after some generations.
    His decision to excercize changes nothing.

    If his desire to excercise was genetic, then his kids would inherit that desire, and if his decision to excercise made it easier to find a mate, then he'd have more children than somebody who doesn't excercise.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    If intelligence were largely determined by genetics, i.e. it was inheritable, it wouldn't make a blind bit of difference whether women were kept as slaves, or were in complete control, or somewhere in between. All of those varied conditions are environmental and would not influence the heritable intelligence.
    In an environment of abject slavery, there is no reward for being intelligent, which means stupid women will be mating successfully just as often as smart women. In order for the average IQ of a population to increase, the smart ones must mate more often/successfully than the dumb ones.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    Quote Originally Posted by Haasum
    This is a mutation that was completely random, nothing would have spurred it to happen, it just happened. However that is a favorable mutation in the eyes of evolution because stronger bones leads to less bone breakage, and breaking bones is a common cause for death in the animal kingdom.
    Careful here. There is no superman evolution can attain. There's no simply better. The normal bone density is just right, because bones of higher density are costly, in the same way weighting cars with roll cages would be costly, not simply better.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    38
    I'm no scientist, but I do know a bit about history, and also about modern societies that oppress women. What biologists call "sexual selection" is still going on in such countries. It usually just falls to men, or to the parents, to do the selecting. This would be true even in countries that treat women like dogs. After all, would you rather breed a smart dog, or a dumb dog? That sounds crass, but some people think in terms like this.

    On the other hand, I wouldn't be surprised to find out that great technological advancement decreases the mean intelligence of a population.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,229
    After all, would you rather breed a smart dog, or a dumb dog?
    You know, all it would do if less intelligent woman were selected for, would be that the whole population would get less intelligent. Both men and woman. Very interesting to think about that. I wonder if there are any cultures that show such tendencies? Of course, compliance does not equal a genetic lack of intelligence, so there might be nothing there....
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Professor marcusclayman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,702
    there is as much, if not more, to say about early childhood development than breeding, when it comes to the intelligence of populations
    Dick, be Frank.

    Ambiguity Kills.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    if less intelligent woman were selected for... the whole population would get less intelligent.
    The sexes of most species are strikingly different, including their behaviour. That was selected.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    In an environment of abject slavery, there is no reward for being intelligent, which means stupid women will be mating successfully just as often as smart women. In order for the average IQ of a population to increase, the smart ones must mate more often/successfully than the dumb ones.
    This s completely wrong on three counts:
    1. You have presumed, incorrectly, that intelligence and IQ are identical.
    2. You have presumed, incorrectly, that IQ is based purely upon genetics.
    3. You have quite overlooked the survival advantages of intelligence to an individual who is held in 'abject slavery'.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,036
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    This s completely wrong on three counts:
    1. You have presumed, incorrectly, that intelligence and IQ are identical.
    2. You have presumed, incorrectly, that IQ is based purely upon genetics.
    I presume that the non-genetic components have no effect on the question at hand. It's sort of like how physical strength isn't 100% genetic, but if you selectively breed strong people together, odds are you'll happen by chance to find people who have the genetic traits frequently enough that the genetic stock still moves toward physical strength.

    You can't expect perfection in a process that's driven by probability.

    3. You have quite overlooked the survival advantages of intelligence to an individual who is held in 'abject slavery'.
    I agree that the advantages aren't totally absent, but in a free society the advantages are much much greater than they are in a slave society.

    Also: oppressive systems often specifically target the smartest members of the population for extermination in order to maintain their control. Joseph Stalin, for example, was known to have massacred a full 1/3 of his military high command before entering WW2, and the resulting lack of competent leadership greatly harmed the war effort.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    38
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    This s completely wrong on three counts:
    1. You have presumed, incorrectly, that intelligence and IQ are identical.
    2. You have presumed, incorrectly, that IQ is based purely upon genetics.
    I presume that the non-genetic components have no effect on the question at hand. It's sort of like how physical strength isn't 100% genetic, but if you selectively breed strong people together, odds are you'll happen by chance to find people who have the genetic traits frequently enough that the genetic stock still moves toward physical strength.

    You can't expect perfection in a process that's driven by probability.

    3. You have quite overlooked the survival advantages of intelligence to an individual who is held in 'abject slavery'.
    I agree that the advantages aren't totally absent, but in a free society the advantages are much much greater than they are in a slave society.

    Also: oppressive systems often specifically target the smartest members of the population for extermination in order to maintain their control. Joseph Stalin, for example, was known to have massacred a full 1/3 of his military high command before entering WW2, and the resulting lack of competent leadership greatly harmed the war effort.
    Had those military men already fathered children, though?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by delsydebothom
    Had those military men already fathered children, though?
    A very pertinent point, the answer to which is almost certainly, if they were ever going to.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    In an environment of abject slavery, there is no reward for being intelligent
    I've wondered about rabbits. Since ancient Rome at least, we've kept them in huge colonies for food, and tried - with poor success! - to control their breed. We've tried to manage them in pens or fenced fields apart from our crops. To the farmer, pubescent male and female rabbits are notoriously hard to tell apart. Males, when handled, withdraw their genitals into their bodies. As well, the female does not ovulate until after she's mated... then she may opt to abort at any time. And we all know what happens when rabbits escape. These traits are adaptive to reproduction in the face of human interference.

    But that's smart not intelligent. Consider dog breeds then.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,036
    Quote Originally Posted by delsydebothom

    Also: oppressive systems often specifically target the smartest members of the population for extermination in order to maintain their control. Joseph Stalin, for example, was known to have massacred a full 1/3 of his military high command before entering WW2, and the resulting lack of competent leadership greatly harmed the war effort.
    Had those military men already fathered children, though?[/quote]

    Well, that was kind of a narrow example. The sheer number of intellectuals who were killed over the years between Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot is difficult to try and count. How many intellectuals did we exterminate in the USA during that time?

    The key to understanding evolution is to quit thinking in terms of "if" or "not", and think instead in terms of "how much?", or "to what degree?". It's these gradients that determine what direction the process will move in. Of course intelligence is a helpful trait in virtually all imaginable situations, but it's more helpful in some situations (social environments) than in others. That should almost go without saying in any discussion about evolution. The value of everything is measured relative to its environment.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •