For ex : no matter how intelligent you are, if you live some 700 years ago when there was a plague like the Black Death, then you'll die. Unless you're lucky enough not to catch it, or somehow your immune system was resistant to such plague. Didn't really matter if your intelligent allowed you to flee from it or what. Even kings and lords died. If a gene is to be passed, it might not be an "intelligent gene" of the time, but rather a gene that allow you to be resistant to such plague.
In the aftermath, it was not about the intelligent gene or not, but the one most fit for the challenge of the time survived. Even it that meant the survivors were less intellectual than the previous generations.
Another, if Genghis Khan is intelligent in the way of warfare, then how far he'll go for successful breeding in today's term ? No that far, because for today's value, warfare isn't top rated as desirable kind of intelligent. So, anyone else who got the same kind of "intelligent" as the Khan today, might not be so successful as well. Their time has run out.
If someone like Mendell is highly intelligent, but was not recognized by the time he lives, would he less or more likely to have children ? If he is more likely, then that means it wouldn't depend on his intelligence. But if he is less likely, then what u said didn't happen ?
2. Of course, no one would admit they'd accept an orangutan to the univ . But what I'm trying to tell is, academic result might or might not be influenced solely by intelligence, which, by itself, though perhaps an important factor for univ admission, is not the sole factor as well. It all depends on the Faculty who in returns depends on current trends.
U can test it u'rself. Just look at the exam test for today's univ and have a look at the exam for the same univ from the past 5 years, past 15 years, or even past 25 years if u can. U'll see that there were so much difference by then.
3. Intelligent alone wouldn't be the single determining factor for education, just as education wouldn't be the single determining factor for heredity. When u want to pass u'r intelligent gene, u'll need to survive the immediate concern as well.
Say in a war zone, that means u'r survival is the most important. Education comes second. Now since Hawkings is really smart, let's guess, if in that condition, and what he wants is to pass his gene (to make all this heredity thing), which one become his priority; continue his PhD or start making babies ? And this is when his own survival can not be guaranteed at any given moment.
It goes same with women. Actually, it is more apparent for women since the pregnancy affects women most. Women have to bargain education for ability to pass their gene. However, those who choose the later are not necessarily less intelligent.
4. Wait, I've read that article too. Nowhere in there was mentioned about woman's intelligence. Was that u'r own assumption ?
6. It is relevant because that means the OP can not hold. the actual number might change because human population changes, but the ratio between more and less intelligence people remains same. And since the ratio of both sexes within the population is same as well, then neither sex would get any more or less intelligent than the other.
Banedon wrote:well if the OP holds then only women should be affected. Men should still get more and more intelligent, since intelligence improves survival chances (more likely to recognize deadly diseases early, earn more money, etc).
See ? now u're confusing intelligence and education again. What u give examples are relevant for education, not intelligence. Better education might give u ability to recognize disease better, earn more money, etc, but better intelligence might not. Unless such intelligence is back up with education. Regrettably, not everyone, regardless of sexes, are given the same chance for education, however intelligent he/she is.
On the other hand, those given better education, might not automatically become highly intelligent as well. Thus again, the OP can not hold.