Is there any indication of increased intellegence over time within the Human species?

Is there any indication? Yes, there is. Observe the tools used.

It takes intelligence to invent better tools. Or where do you think the tools come from?(Fascinatingly, there's evidence of what might be a Neanderthal culture that tried to learn how to make Cro Magnon tools but couldn't master them - can't remember the name of it though, will try to remember to look it up)

An improvement in tools shows an increase in intelligence. Prior homonids had several million years to improve their tools and did not. Neanderthals made some advances but got no further in the 1.5 (? - IIRC) that they were around. In just a few tens of thousand years Cro Magnon made huge advances and has continued doing so ever since.That to me is clear evidence of increased intelligence.

Yes, I would say Europeans are more intelligent than Aboriginals. Not genetically, but there is good evidence that living in the kind of environments that we do increases our intelligence (as measured by IQ).That, however, is missing the point. We're comparing the intelligence of species, not the intelligence of individuals or groups within a species. While Aboriginals may not have the tools of westerners they still have better tools than the Neanderthals. The only homo sapiens group I can think of who might not have done were the (now extinct) native people of Tasmania. What is clear is that Aboriginies are perfectly capable of managing to understand, use and develop "European" technology while there is no evidence that any group of Neanderthals living contempary with Cro Magnon man ever managed to reproduce their technology even when they encountered it.In a few thousand years Cro Magnon man made strides forward in tool production and design unseen in a million years of Neanderthal life. Now there are other explanations than increased intelligence but I don't think any of them are any where near as likely. And, finally, the OP asked if there was 'any indication of increased intelligence' - improved tool use is definetely an indication even though it is not proof.

No. It's a statement of fact. Facts are never racist. Well, duh!

Even if tools were improved by accidents it takes intelligence to recognise and repeat that accident. In any case, there is no reason to suppose that Cro Magnon suddenly started having a whole load of lucky accidents where prior homonids did not. Which species developed these? We actually have quite a good idea what wood and bone tools the Neanderthals had. But even if we did not; the fact they failed to advance in stone tools is sufficent evidence of inferior intelligence regardless of what wooden tools they had. The more specialised and refined tools of Cro Magnon man are simply better.

How do you suggest we evaluate the memory capabilities of extinct homonids? The discussion has centred around the material artefacts left by them because that's all we have to work with. The fact is that we can never fully assess the intelligence of a extinct creature, hell, we struggle to do it for living ones. All we can do is search for the most likely conclusion given the evidence we do have.That evidence is the tools and other artefacts left behind. Those things imply that homo sapiens is smarter than any prior homonid.

To be clear, I am speaking about Aboriginals living a pre-contact lifestyle or one similar to it. IQ tests do have some level of cultural bias, yes, but only in some areas and not a great deal. It is also possible to reduce this bias through better test design. They aren't a perfect measure of intelligence but they are the best measure we have and groups living in more primititive societies do score lower on them.I don't think this is any great surprise. We (as a society) spend an awful lot of time and money exercising kids mental abilities; I'd be far more surprised if this didn't have an effect on mental ability than if it did. We're also less prone to disease, and malnutrition which helps development and probably also has an effect.The rest of your post I shall ignore because you've said exactly nothing I disagree with in it, nor anything that contradicts what I said.

Yes.As I, in fact, said in my first post:

quote:

---

Yes, I would say Europeans are more intelligent than Aboriginals. Not genetically, but there is good evidence that living in the kind of environments that we do increases our intelligence (as measured by IQ).

---

This message has been edited by Mr Jack, 08-24-2005 10:51 AM

Since there is no evidence of Neanderthals who lived concurrently with Cro Magnon man having mastered their tools I would conclude that, most likely, Cro Magnon man is genetically more intelligent than Neanderthals.

No. Cro-Magnon tools are functionally superior to Neanderthal ones. They are lighter, sharper, more balanced and more specialised. I would go as far as to say there is no function for which Neanderthal tools are superior.

Neanderthal and Cro Magnon tools can be made from the same raw material.As I've said already, tools do not prove that Cro Magnon man was smarter than Neanderthals but they sure as hell imply it.The ability to produce better solutions to the same problem is one of the hallmarks of intelligence, as is the ability to understand and perform complex, multi-stage procedures and operations. Based on the evidence we have, Cro Magnon man scores more highly than Neanderthals do. It's possible Neanderthal man was smart but too clumsy but, frankly, the lack of development in his tools do not speak to that answer nor does the lack of multi-part tools. It's possible Neanderthal man was a mathematical and philosophical genius but oddly lacking in practical skills, but how likely is that?I agree, there are many explanations for superiority of Cro Magnon tools over Neanderthal ones but the most likely is that Cro Magnon man was smarter than Neanderthal man.

We've done this one already with the aborigine/european example.It doesn't work. It doesn't work because the Neanderthals had a 200,000 year headstart and didn't make advances in that time that Cro Magnon man made in a tenth of it and because Neanderthals failed to reproduce and utilise the improvements created by Cro Magnons despite being around in the same places at the same time.

If it were down to dumb luck, we could reasonable expect the Neanderthals to have developed better technology having had a longer period to have that luck in.

Considering that the Neanderthal diet was considerably higher in meat, and many of the improved tools were centred on either hunting or the processing of animal products (skin, bone, fat) I can't see the case for lack of need.