[quote]You showed your ignorance when you mentioned "thinking beaks into a shape".[/quote]I was explaining how intelligence is not hereditary, and you didn't quote the entire reply. I continued to say (and it is even supported by Darwin) that if one was smart and he married another who was even as smart, their children would not be even a fraction as intelligent as any of them.[quote]Intelligence can start with something as simple as knowing "that's a predator, avoid it"[/quote]So you are implying that after millions of years of existence, humans were the only creatures to develop intelligence.[quote]..."that's poisonous, don't eat it".[/quote]Now this part of your statement is completely illogical. Any animal that thought this would never have known such a fact since something considered poisonous would not have been realized until after they ate the poisonous plant, and doing so would have caused the creature to die from eating the already not-known poison plant; thus, the news would never have been promulgated.[quote]As for that lion example, I've got news for you. Life isn't like a gladiator arena. The Romans threw slaves in with the lions knowing full well they were going to die...[/quote]This statement shows how little this individual knew about the gladiator arena.[spoiler]*fail*[/spoiler][quote]...because even though the slave might be smarter than the lion, he was trapped in an arena where all that mattered was strength. But did you stop to think how the lion got there? That's right, because humans were smart enough to trap it.[/quote]In your hypothetical situation, let's go for something more realistic: Even after millions of years of existence, if the naked human that inconveniently came across the paths of a naked lion, which would have won if they were to proceed at each other aggressively? My example toward that other individual who I was replying to pointed out that the fact of the matter is that no matter how smart a creature is, Natural Selection does not support it; thus, the evolutionary process kills itself, and you repeating the scenario demonstrates the support for my thesis.[quote]Why don't you explain how my thinking differs from that of most "evolutionists"? Because, as far as I can tell, I'm just citing basic principles of nature.[/quote][INFORMATION PENDING]...

You're confusing smart and intelligent. Smart are the guys who can multiply ten digit numbers in their heads. Intelligence, at its simplest level, is simply the ability think. An animal doesn't have to be dying to know that something was poison. Maybe it recognizes a bitter taste and spits the thing out. Maybe it sees another animal die after eating the thing and makes the connection. Again with the lion. Remember that bit about knowing when to run away from predators? A naked unarmed man who charges a lion head on is a moron and quite frankly deserves to die. He has failed at natural selection, so his genes won't get passed on. The human doesn't need to kill the lion. He just needs to survive so he can get laid. He can use his intelligence to his advantage by, say, climbing a tree or picking up a heavy rock. Maybe he urinates somewhere to spread his scent around and confuse the lion. Maybe he knows that lions sleep a lot, so he waits for that before running away. Still don't how intelligence can be an advantage? Now, knowledge isn't hereditary, but it can still be passed from parent to child. Children can learn by observing their parents. Thus, the knowledge obtained by the parent during its lifetime is passed on to the next generation. The instinct to observe and imitate a parent is a trait that could affect natural selection.