You’re assuming a fast timescale. That isn’t necessary for a general trend towards greater intelligence to exist. Sea scorpions weren’t as smart as dinosaurs, who were not as smart as mammals. Brain to body mass ratios have been generally increasing all throughout the fossil record.
Scorpions (their land-dwelling relatives at least), and dinosaurs (birds are still considered dinosaurs) still exist. Scorpions today have the same intelligence as their more ancient cousins, and as far as birds are concerned scientists have found no proof that indicates the non-avian dinosaurs were any less intelligent than species of birds alive today. Neither scorpions nor birds are driving around mini cars under our feet, otherwise you would have seen so.
Point is evolution has no inherent direction, otherwise it would be intelligent design (thus implying some god or gods actually exist). You just have to be good enough for your generation, not even the best, and live long enough to reproduce. That's it! If you die right after having sex it's okay because your offspring will now outlive you and pass your genes on to future generations, congratulations you've won the game of life! Hence why evolution doesn't trend towards intelligence because sex, splitting in half, pollinating and making seeds, or releasing spores require zero intelligence whatsoever. Those basal functions are operated by pure instinct, or in less brainless beings, chemicals that react and trigger the reproductive process at a certain season or whenever the being eats too much (like bacteria).
You seem to take biomass as a scale for development.
Others would take energy consumption.
Is an obese middle income person more successful than a rich person with fitness?
-------------------
Oh and you take bacterias versus homo sapiens sapiens
Unfair
Considering the obese man is middle income, there are still plenty of women who would want to marry and have kids with him. The rich fit guy doesn't matter that much unless he somehow chooses to have more kids than the obese man (which I doubt since statistically wealthier people prefer smaller families). Therefore, evolution wise the obese man would be more of a winner because he has more kids, and thus his genes are much more likely to be common in future generations of humanity. Meaning obesity becomes more common in the future for humans, while fitness becomes super rare.
Also don't slander the bacteria. Mitochondria are bacteria that have developed a symbiotic relationship with all multicellular life to the point that they have evolved to reproduce with their host organisms so much to the point where they have become integrated as part of the whole organism. They are the powerhouse of the cell, without them your cells would struggle to metabolize enough ATP to make your brain, let alone your muscles even function. Other forms of bacteria also reside in the gut, without which you couldn't even digest your food and you'd starve to death. Bacteria also make cheese, who doesn't like cheese? All of these wonderful functions done without any brains whatsoever, just pure chemical and hormonal inputs and outputs.
Now the reason I think this is relevant to democracy is because too many people think that progressivism ought to be the "new" and "woke" form of democracy. Especially
@Evie. Progressivism is nothing like original democracy however and instead is an attempt to create an elitist society of intellectuals mixed in with some bread and circus type policies to please the masses without ever really empowering them or giving them dignity. Truth is there is a lot of diversity in intellectual capability within species especially humans, yet exceptional intelligence as a gene is still rarer than average or lower intelligence. That means the formation of a dictatorship of the super intelligent (which is what progressivism really is) would only empower and enrich a very small subset of the population. There would be no checks and balances, because who would want to restrict the smart people from getting things done? However, the problem is power corrupts and empowering a few, leads to corruption as is human biological nature (even smart people can be corrupt and evil so don't tell me no). And smart people also have a disdain and sometimes hatred for those they believe are stupider than them (which would be like 80% of the actual population they are supposed to serve) meaning they would lack the required empathy and self-interest to actually handle the responsibility of such exceptional levels of power granted to them which progressivism by its very nature would have to provide. Thus, an intellectual eugenics-oriented dystopia would be the final form of such a system, where the smart would be cruel towards and outright attempt to euthanize the dumb. And since the dumber are a majority, this would be a tyranny of the highest order. Bacteria proving that intelligence is over-rated, and we need a more ethical based democracy that even allows even the stupid representation, or else evil smart people will genocide "us the majority" into extinction via their people hating policies.