Whos smarter?

[SJ Zero]

From an evolutionary point of view, true illiterates, especially ones without social charm and grace have problems making it in the world, whereas people of intellect, charm and grace tend to survive and breed.

Evolution remains at some level alawys, until we stop breeding.

[Jofers]

Evolution is the product of a isolation and minor genetic mutations. Skin color is evolution, but it's not natural selection (to an extent: dark skin sunburns less easily), as most features are (pinky toes). If the only evolution that ever occured was things that mattered to our survival, then macro-evolution would be impossible, as the intellegent-designers claim. "Non-survival of the unfit" is really a better way to describe natural selection.

Of course, flaws get cut out of species because usually only about 25% of evolving animals survive to reproduce in nature, that's a lot of non-survival of the non-fit. At least 75% of humans (to put it hedonistically) reproduce because we have, you know, a society. AND we aren't isolated from other humans, we can go anywhere. The result: our bones are the exact same as humans 125,000 years ago, and unless everyone starts inbreeding, you aren't going to see a whole lot of genetic mutation that isn't worked out of the main population through variety mating.

As for social evolution, I dunno. I'm sticking to physical mental capacity, as if you had a cro-magnon baby and a neanderthal baby and started teaching things, which would learn more.

[SJ Zero]

Neandertals weren't really pre-historic humans, they were more a sub-breed of the homo genus. Whether they were even capable of creating offspring with Homo Sapiens is a subject of debate, but the general consenses is that they could not(Otherwise there would be Neandertal DNA in our bodies). Also, while they had larger cranial capacity than Homo Sapiens, several critical neurological structrues are present in the former which don't exist in the latter, meaning that Neandertals literally wouldn't have the capacity for even thinking of the things which brought Homo Sapiens to dominance.

Romantics may believe that predecessors of the Homo Genus were supermen, but science has proven conclusively enough that Homo Sapiens capacity for thought is unparalleled, and the factors of diet I mentioned earlier mean that even compared to early Homo Sapiens, we are more intelligent. The fact that we have modern neurological science also means that our children are developed more specifically towards being intelligent.

Interestingly, science has progressed more in the past 200 years than in the rest of the history of the world combined. Where we once had alchemy, we now have quantum physics and atomic science. Where we once had witch-doctors, we now have established medical science. This alone indicates either an increase in intelligence, or a societal shift towards a culture in which applied science and by extention, intelligence, is of growing importance.

[anarky]

Like I said before somewhere: I hear there's another ice age coming.

We can't adapt to that, most of us would be wiped out because of cold and thirst. It would take us ages for our genes to kick into survival mode. Could we survive? Intelligence is irrelevant when it comes to physical adaptation.

>anarky

[TheDarkJay]

Because neanderthals were a different spieces to homo sapiens, they would have probebly fought. And i do not think warring tribes liked to mate with each other

[steven_basic]

Where we once had alchemy, we now have quantum physics and atomic science. Where we once had witch-doctors, we now have established medical science. This alone indicates either an increase in intelligence, or a societal shift towards a culture in which applied science and by extention, intelligence, is of growing importance.

Take into account that great advancements in both astronomy and medical sciences that we take as "basic knowledge" today that got people killed or imprisoned up to just a few hundred years ago, and it looks more like a change in society allowing new ideas to form.

...of course, we have some hold-overs of this way of thinking still evident when various issues of reproductions are concerned (think various birth control / abortion / cloning issues) and the almost fanatic followers on both pro and con sides of the debates.