It appears you are trying to shift the emphasis from the argument itself to the particular semantics of how things are being said. This is undesireable. I am speaking about the irrelevancy of his argument, not the irrelevancy of his statement. His statement is clearly relevant. To rehash—Despite the fact that evolution is still going—on a suitably local (say, 100,000 years) timescale—humans have reached a major plateau in intelligence.
It appears you are trying to shift the emphasis from the argument itself to the particular semantics of how things are being said
Quite the reverse.
humans have reached a major plateau in intelligence.
No they haven’t. Whatever effect the the currently volatile evolutionary pressures may have on human intelligence a ‘major plateau’ would be incredible.
It appears you are trying to shift the emphasis from the argument itself to the particular semantics of how things are being said. This is undesireable. I am speaking about the irrelevancy of his argument, not the irrelevancy of his statement. His statement is clearly relevant. To rehash—Despite the fact that evolution is still going—on a suitably local (say, 100,000 years) timescale—humans have reached a major plateau in intelligence.
Quite the reverse.
No they haven’t. Whatever effect the the currently volatile evolutionary pressures may have on human intelligence a ‘major plateau’ would be incredible.
Please elaborate as I fail to understand your reasoning.