Even humans are still adapting.
In terms of evolution, it has not been so long ago that people started to keep cattle and drink milk from them.
Some people can process lactose, a constituent of milk just fine.Other people do not have the right genes for this. The number of people who can process lactose is increasing slowly.
Other life forms are also constantly adapting.Very often these adjustments do not directly affect the cleverness. Sometimes it also happens even.
Quite recently, an ant colony has been found in the Alps that behaves differently from the same kind of ants around it.Whether it is rare behavior or really new behavior is not yet clear.
Instead of fighting each other’s tent, many queens live together.A number of nests very close together makes couples much safer. Ant colonies â € œold styleâ € do not make a stand of chance, by the sheer number of cooperating ants.
The merging of so many organisms poses the same problems as when people started doing so: diseases.Even thereupon those ants have found some. They bstakes pieces of resin, which is not edible for ants, in their nest to which fungi and other infectious sources stick to it.
Although these ants are not really smart individually, I think the end result is pretty clever.
Why do you think that?There are dozens of examples of species that have developed in a relatively short period of time. Consult your local library *
And becoming smarter is not what evolution seeks.Evolution seeks nothing. It involves a gradual adaptation to a changing environment, that can be anything, e.g. a color adjustment or a change in beak-shaped.
- Library: Place where â € ̃boekenâ €™ be stored.
The owner finds it, under conditions, good that you take them home. Apparently it is for no other life form on Earth (evolutionarily) of advantage or lacking the environmental factors, to develop a higher intelligence.You can, in short, survive fine as a kind with a bunch of sharp teeth and a fine nose.
It is a misconception about the evolution that this â € œperfectieâ € aims to.The goal is simply to surviveas a species and therefore not as an individual with as little effort as possible.Quite troublesome for humans, why also their progress does not seem any longer evolutionarily determines.
â € Œfurther Developmentâ € is continually observed in nature at lower life forms.
Now take new varieties that we grow from dogs, cats, cows, horses and so on.
Furthermore, viruses and Bacteria are constantly adapting, so they develop further.
However, the higher the development position and the life expectancy, the slower it is.
To compare: A fruit fly is sexually ripe after a few minutes after birth and a generation lives only a few days.So every evolutionary step is perceptible relatively quickly.
Dogs live for 15 years and are sexually mature after 1 year.That is why you can observe the forced development through targeted cultivation still relatively quickly, namely after two, three generations.
In humans, that is something else.There are no people breeds, because we are not â € œrutâ €. Every evolutionary step happens to us in a natural way instead of a forced way.
Therefore, we are seemingly not further developed since the last great Ice Age.
That we are now bigger than a few centuries ago is no â € œdevelopmentâ €.It is the result of better nutrition and health. Nothing.
We cannot predict when we will really have taken the next step in our development.EÃ © n thing is certain, however, it will take thousands of years before we will be able to perceive such a change-which is particularly slow, over thousands of generations-so that we can say: â € œyes, now we are further voludâ €.
So your whole question goes out of completely incorrect positions.
Your theorem is not correct.
There are a few people building on existing Technologies.The large majority benefits from those few people, and is becoming increasingly dependent on that technology. I do not call that development. I do not call that smart.
20000 years ago, every man could live independently.Make fire. Food search. Without AH, highways, petroleum, etc.
The latest Scientific Ameican has an article on the subject.
The argument is that the evolutiy of man over the Ltatste millions has been thoroughly studied and there are also good indications that we are smarter than Homo Erectus from 2 million years ago (there is little to say in the short term).In the article for the first time archaeological research is done on objects made by monkeys, but they do not go beyond Zoâ €™ N 3000 years old stones. Who knows how intelligent the ancestors of the current chimpanzee were? You can test animals hard IQ.