Conservapedia vs Evolution: Vol 2

Last time, we countered Conservapedia's claim that artistic beauty lacks any plausible evolutionary explanation by refuting the central point and providing counter-examples- the very ones Conservapedia tried to use to dismiss evolution. Click here to read that (Same window).

Today, we're discussing Conservapedia's second counter-example to evolution. It reads: 

2) Evolution predicts that human intelligence should increase over time, when in fact all evidence is that it is decreasing: declining SAT scores, shortening attention spans, and increasing mental problems.

This is the kind of claim that a child would make after watching a Science Fiction movie. “The X-men  have reached the pinnacle of human Evolution! Smarter, stronger, faster, telekinetic abilities!” This view of Evolution is so fundamentally absurd and movie-like that I can't tell if it's satire or not. SAT scores have been declining for 50 years.

Checkmate, Evolutionists? Humor aside, this claim is demonstrably false. 

Evolution itself makes no claims to human intelligence. We can attempt to predict how an environment may affect a certain species to evolve over extended periods of time, but incorrect predictions wouldn't necessarily disprove evolution.

An incorrect prediction would only turn the scientific community on its head if one of the laws of evolution (that the theory is built upon) couldn't account for what actually happened.

So using "Evolution predicts X, and X did not occur" as a counter-example is inherently flawed. I could end the article here, but I'll continue for educational purposes, and because I like talking about gorillas.

Before that, I need to clear the air. Conservapedia makes it seem like there's some massive conspiracy, where the majority of scientists are plotting against God or something. Let's look at reality. I can only think of 3 possibilities.
1) Either 99% of biological scientists are wrong, 
2) there's a massive conspiracy between them, or
3) a portion of the population misunderstands a commonly misrepresented scientific theory.
Occam's Razor demands rational thinkers to contemplate which of these choices makes the least assumptions. Now let's talk about monkeys.


Sometimes, there's no need increased intelligence. Some primates have kept the same level of intelligence for 10,000,000 years. Let's look at a family of gorillas in the wild.

If their environment generally stayed the same, there would be no demand for an adaptation. They're already smart enough to survive, breed, and pass on their genes. If nothing in the environment kills off the unintelligent ones, they also pass on their genes. 

Furthermore, traits of intelligent may actually be unfavorable to survival. Going back to our gorilla family, throw in the very recent presence of poachers. Suddenly, traits such as the curiosity to investigate may cause immediate death. If the curious gorillas don't run away from poachers, they may be more likely to be picked off, thus never passing on those genes. 

Enough about gorillas, let's talk about us. Why did us humans develop such intelligence in the first place?  Some of our finer aspects of intelligence, such as higher communication, may not have been necessary for survival. They could have easily developed by proxy via sexual selection. [1] This conclusion is pretty likely, since intelligence was a good indicator of general fitness.

I could stop here, but there's a glaringly obvious example that destroys Conservapedia's claim about human intelligence. It's something we've observed as early as 1939. There's a very real, very noticeable inverse relationship between intelligence and fertility. [2] This means that upper-class humans with higher intelligence have less children than lower-class humans with less intelligence. I'm not generalizing here, this is all on average. This may be due to better family planning, easier access to birth control, more independence, or other factors.

Idiocracy puts a hilarious spin on what could happen if this trend continues.

To put it bluntly, 'less intelligent' people have more children. Given this fact, we can easily predict decreasing SAT scores. However, Conservapedia should know that these problems go much deeper than the theory of evolution. Other factors, such as school funding and lower standards affect SAT scores. Not only that, human intelligence may have more to do with nutrition [3] than anything else. 

So to even consider the possibility that lower SAT scores counter evolution is wishful thinking at best, and the fact that intelligent people are less likely to pass on their DNA basically destroys Conservapedia's claim. Boo!

Next: Can Evolution account for the current rate of extinction? (Same window)

_________
I made a twitter. Message me or something. @RationalJesse
_________

[1]  
Miller. The Mating Mind. ISBN 0-8058-5749-4.
[2]
The Sociological Review
olume a31, Issue 2, pages 144–165, April 1939
[3] 
Dewar, C.S; Psych, M.R.C (2004). "Enhanced nutrition of offspring as a crucial factor for the evolution of intelligence on land".Medical Hypotheses 62 (5): 802–7. doi:10.1016/j.mehy.2003.11.031. PMID 15082111.