This article seems to take the wrong stance that evolution is a slow change over extended time in population. The new models of evolution is actually population change happens rapidly in a few generations caused by outside stimuli. The resulting change lasts a long time until new stimuli cause population change. Evolution if graphed is steps instead of a curve. Did they even address the cause for "intelligence?" As I see it two possible signs of intelligence before documented communications (ie. Pictures and what not) would be simple tools and fire. It is outside the scope of this paper(maybe), but, I think they did to be able to address if humans today are actually any more intelligent than humans in the past, or human record knowledge is the cause of human advancement today. Also I did not see them define intellgence as it pertains to nonintellgent life.