In the review mentioned below, the author mentions Gould’s “spandrel argument” for the occurrence of “by-products” of evolutionary processes–i.e. the ability of humans to play chess is not a gene that has been selected for, it is the by-product of spacial reasoning:
“Snails build their shells by winding a tube around an axis of coiling. This geometric process leaves an empty cylindrical space, called an umbilicus, along the axis. A few species of snails use the umbilicus as a brooding chamber for storing eggs. But the umbilicus arose as a nonadaptive spandrel, not as an adaptation for reproduction. The overwhelming majority of snails do not use their umbilici for brooding, or for much of anything.”
My response to this argument (also brought up by the esteemed Richard Bennett) has always been:
If you can imagine these structures, why can’t you imagine that certain groups acquired a structure that gives them a bonus in ‘g’? Intelligence past a certain point doesn’t necessarily afford a reproductive advantage, especially in pre-agricultural societies. (hell, it doesn’t really provide any advantages now) What if other selections provided the brain architecture that allows certain groups to surpass others in particular mental exercises?
Gouldites are logically inconsistent. Am I the only one (besides our esteemed authors and readers) who can see this?
Update from Razib: Check out Randall Parker’s comment-very informative on the idea of fitness & IQ.
Comments are closed.