Have you heard that "intelligence" isn't evolutionary...?

Question

if part (note I said PART, since evolutionary theory has several parts) of evolution is "survival of the fittest", it seems that the most intelligent (humans at least) are the least fit to adapt and survive. Here's a stupid example of this: try throwing a nerd into a forest and see how long he survives...

Answer 1

Throw a bear in downtown New York and see how long he makes it

Same thing only different

I'm not argueing your point, I don't necessarily disagree with it But there are two sides to every discussion.

I am a Creation believer BTW

Kp

Answer 2

Not sure which side of the arguement you are going for. Can't tell if you are for this idea or against it. But I think our intelligence is what got us out of the forest and into society in the first place.
What you are saying is like taking a land lizard and throwing it into the ocean and saying that just because its evolutionary ancestors came from the ocean that it should be able to survive.
I think I nerd would have a good chance at surviving in the forest because he's smart enough to adapt and logically think a way out of it.

Answer 3

"survival of the fittest" is a term to describe how we got to where we are now and how the animal kingdom is. This is no longer relevant in human society; rather it should be "survival of the alive" No one (human) needs to hunt down their food, nor outwit their prey to survive. All we need to do is go to a grocery store and buy some food, or sit on the street and beg for some. We adapt and survive a life in society. However our innate foundations from our ancestors are still prewired into our mind. This allows us (at least most of us with some common sense) to survive in the wilderness.

Answer 4

This reminds me of a site I saw recently which described the different forms of learning people use.

Some people are better visual learners, others absorb more knowledge by hearing something as in a lecture.

In terms of natural selection, if you put a visual person and an auditory person in the forest and blinded both of them, the auditory person might stand a better chance of surviving than his visually predisposed companion.

I guess survival will depend in part on what kind of intelligence you have along with your environment. If that nerd is MacGyver he might do fine in that forest, but if he's a relatively useless nerd like Screech from that series Saved By The Bell, then he's screwed.

Answer 5

It's possible that developing intelligence, and then society, has stalled our evolution. Since a society takes care of it's less-fit members, the culling of individuals with maladaptive traits doesn't happen. It still works out for our species, for the most part. Look at Stephen Hawking. Without some pretty resource-intensive care, he wouldn't last long, but with it, he's expanded our knowledge of the universe.

Answer 6

But survival in human terms no longer requires being able to survive naked in a forest, but rather making money, attracting a mate, having kids, etc.

Plus, a lot of those nerds were Eagle Scouts, at least in my neck of the woods.

Answer 7

If you've ever been through any kind of survival training you would know that intelligence is very much involved. An intelligent animal is more capable of improvising. Opposable thumbs are good to have as well.

Answer 8

I heard of that, having a big brain takes up a lot of energy. With humans the reason that intelligence works is because we also have hands that allows us to use our intelligence to make tools that make up for weaker bodies.

Answer 9

Most estimates place the genetic component of intelligence at between fifty and seventy percent.

And try throwing a retard into a forest.

Actually don't, that'd be really mean.

Answer 10

Sure. And sharks don't fare well in the desert.

You seem to be forgetting that "fitness" for survival depends completely on the environment.