Here's the crux of that article:

> At some point between 150-person ancient tribes and New York City, human evolution jumped off of the “survival of the fittest biology” snail and onto the “survival of the fittest stories” rocket.

If we ignore alot of the hand-wavey stuff (debates on the viability of various models often come down to hard math--i.e. the rate of selection benefit drop-off as a function of kin distance--and thus you need that level of specificity to make a persuasive case) one of the root assumptions up to and including this point is that intelligence is driving fitness for group participation. But that only begs the question of what's driving intelligence.

In 2021 the notion that human's are unique benefactors of high-order intelligence is quaint. We see intelligence everywhere. In fact, as far as we can tell, at least for the past several hundred million years (dinosaurs, mammals, etc) intelligence arises easily in nature, at least to the extent it's ecologically advantageous to the individual.

In the above story, it seems that incrementally increased group intelligence precedes incremental increased altruism. But if that's so, why don't we see more human-magnitude intelligence everywhere, considering that incremental increases in intelligence come rather quickly in higher order species. Alternatively, intelligence increases incrementally on an individualized basis because it's a better fit for a more cooperative society, which again only begs the question of why the society became more cooperative. And that question needs concrete answers other than "because it obviously benefits the group."

I can't really tell how strongly the article depends on group selection theory. On its surface it doesn't, but arguably it still subtly does. In any event, it's not an answer. It's just another plausible narrative. Better than most narratives, but it doesn't even come close to the level of scientific specificity required to draw meaningful conclusions about the evolution of human altruism or intelligence. Joseph Jordania has a much better narrative; far more specific (perhaps too specific, and thus likely wrong in the strictest sense), and one with more concrete predictions (e.g. that prevalence of speech impediments will be lower in East Asian populations, due to the gene(s) for articulated speech arising in East Asia and back migrating to Africa and Europe).

> I don’t know what sort of evidence or experiment you are looking for.

1) One that doesn't have large conceptual gaps. 2) One that makes precise, relevantly falsifiable predictions that can be (and iteratively are) confirmed.

> It’s even possible that it isn’t stable and we are undergoing evolution now.

Indeed. But if we had a concrete understanding of our evolution, we'd have a much better idea not only if that's the case (continuing evolution is a good bet), but what those fundamental dynamics look like, as opposed to high-level, squishy observations about how they manifest.

Actually, I have a movie script idea about a group of scientists figuring that all out and concluding that the evolutionary pressures sustaining human altruism are rapidly receding, threatening not only the collapse of human society but in turn human intelligence. The group of scientists endeavor to use genetic engineering to "artificially" sustain altruistic tendencies--a metaprocess which if successful could be seen as a sort of next level evolutionary leap in higher-order life. But a group of evil scientists surreptitious infiltrate the program with the intention of creating a world of slaves (highly intelligent, but focused only the well-being of the rulers), begging the question of how the ruling minority could sustain itself with such malevolence. And the drama plays out thusly, perhaps leaving the question unanswered as to whether the good scientists win, or if not whether the evil scientists are simply acting out the prediction of an inevitable end to humanity and human-scale intelligence.