In his book; The Blind Watchmaker, Richard Dawkins discusses the evolution of human intelligence in terms of ‘sexual selection’ and ‘explosive evolution’.

These concepts are discussed in more detail in the 'Arms Race' in Chapter 15 (God Gametes and the Planet of the Butterfly Queen). Dawkins holds that in an Arms Race there may arise in any population a sexual preference for a long tail on a bird, long antlers on deer, or in the case of humans, more intelligence. His argument is that there may not be a significant advantage in a particular trait - if it is selected however, genes for selecting trait, and having trait, will compound and be expressed in increasingly exaggerated ways as each generation refines these features. Once a peacock’s long tail is selected, male offspring will have long tails and female progeny, a sexual preference for long tails. For example, it is thought that the combined selective pressure of peacocks needing longer tails and peahens preferring them, pushes the length of tails a long way beyond the optimum length for the species. Dawkins writes:

Setting wrens on one side, peacock fans, and widow bird and bird of paradise tails, in their gaudy extravagance, are very plausibly seen as end products of explosive, spiraling evolution by positive feedback. Fisher and his modern successors have shown us how this might have come about. Is this idea essentially tied to sexual selection, or can we find convincing analogies in other kinds of evolution? It is worth asking this question, if only because there are aspects of our own evolution that have more than a suggestion of the explosive about them, notably the extremely rapid swelling of our brains during the last few million years. It has been suggested that this is due to sexual selection itself, braininess being a sexually desirable character (or some manifestation of braininess, such as ability to remember the steps of a long and complicated ritual dance).

Even if it were possible to evolve these traits by way of cumulative selection, we are as well asked to believe that species are programmed to select for characteristics that impact in such a negative way, on their chance of survival. There is little doubt that the tail of a peacock is beautiful, so it is possible that the peahen may decide to mate with the male with the most impressive display, purely on aesthetic grounds. If, however, survival of the fittest is driving the evolution of species, there is no escaping the conclusion that genes for growing a long tail and also for preferring a long tail would soon be lost because of the unjustifiably high costs they impose.

It is also difficult to believe that human intelligence evolved because our ancestors needed to remember the steps of a dance. This overlooks the fact that a greater brain volume could never outweigh the numerous other physical and social costs this evolutionary course has imposed on our species.

More importantly though, it makes the completely false assumption that dance is related to intelligence. Dance is an expression of emotion and an artistic display of body movements that has little to do with remembering steps. It is possible that academics who spend the bulk of their lives closeted on university campuses may come to think that braininess is sexy, yet it is doubtful if this view is shared by the outside world. The music industry makes billions of dollars promoting sex and dance and there is little evidence to suggest they are interested in presenting popular ‘body movers’ as intelligent. If the promoter of some future rock star were to later discover that his ‘body shaker’ was not only sexy, but also intelligent, it would likely be regarded as an unfortunate oversight to destroy his career if made public. 

There seems little evidence to suggest that society has ever regarded intelligence as sexy. If being able to dance were driving our evolution, emotional expression and a good sense of rhythm might well have been caught up in a spiral of explosive evolution, not intelligence. Mastering the theory of relativity or designing microchips is not sexy. Darwinists need to come up with a far better explanation than ‘remembering steps of a dance’ to explain the rapid evolution of our human brain.

The Above is an excerpt from my book God Gametes and the Planet of the Butterfly Queen; page 269.