>The fact that you are writing this post is ample evidence that
>intelligence has in fact increased; humans of 50-200,000 years ago were
>completely incapable of this behavior or this level of analysis in any
>way;
How do you know that, did you teach one from then writing and reading
as a child and educated that person similar to the way you were
educated?
>they would score lower on any intelligence test, even one that was
>designed for them.
FOR them? BY them should be the correct one.
If I were to make a practical one for you (plural) I'd give you sticks
and stones and flint stones and ask you to make tools out of them,
and maybe send you into the forest without anything on you and observe
who is more intelligent in surviving.
And if we were in the past, so that here no damage could be done, go
akasha surfing with all involved brains, as there I perceive a lot
about different capacities.
>There is no legimate intelligence defintion you could
>use which would not give you that humans today are more intelligent.
I might drop all involved naked into different natural areas and
afterwards give them some magic tasks, and I would not be sure who is
better.
And what if I believe that no one truely intelligent would pollute
water, and measure intelligence among other aspects by how much beings
destroy and how much they protect environments for which their systems
are naturally programmed?
> I could take two identical twins, raise one in an isolated
Just that no one said that back them they grew up as isolated as today
some Westie kids are, or some adults are, some of whom then might
kill themselves.
>impoverished prison, and the other at Oxford, and the Oxford raised twin
>would be MUCH MORE intelligent than the one raised in a prison.
If you raised him in a like here, depending on the folks there,
I would not be sure who would be more intelligent in the end.
>Some traits
areas
>that contribute intelligence are heritable
