I think the reasoning which suggests that morality can exist independent of religion is fairly simple. Religions couldn't have been formed until humans were living in societies. A society cannot be sustained without some kind of morality, to deter abuses of the social model - nothing would induce me to live next door to a neighbour, if I was constantly afraid that he would come over and murder me. Hence, if society preceded religion, and if morality preceded society, then it follows that morality preceded religion, and is therefore not inseparable from religion.

I think we just have to appreciate that intelligence is diverse. Using humans - or even specific types of humans, such as the academically gifted - as models of intelligence, is awfully arrogant, and refuses to acknowledge that the value of people, and of all animals generally, is determined more than by a certain few qualities.

I wouldn't go so far as to say that we're all equally intelligent - but I believe that eradicating the hierarchy of intelligence is wiser than proudly preserving it.

Reminds me of part of the story in the Marathon game series: Martian colonists were abandoned and left to starve after it proved too difficult to support them using Earth's technology and resources. I hope that doesn't really happen. I also think this could be exciting.

I don't object to your observations. I just think it's important to illustrate that a human brain isn't the pinnacle of evolution, and that the developments of our brain can still be exchanged for other qualities under certain selective pressures.

It's true, that having a large brain and a sophisticated intelligence are an immense advantage, and make us exceptionally adaptable. But bacteria are adaptable also, and this isn't contained within their individual intelligence, but within their ability to rapidly proliferate and evolve. Human beings are admirable, but developing advanced intelligence wasn't the inevitable course of a species seeking survival, and I wanted to point that out.

I like how evolution almost seems prepared to dispense with an organ if it demands too much energy. We don't need to be technologically advanced and emotionally developed creatures in order to propagate our genes. We just need to be able to live and spread our seed. Strong muscles, high agility, and quick reflexes require less energy than a complex brain, whilst still contributing significantly to the ability of a species to survive. Hence, unless conditions are absolutely ideal, there's little incentive for animals to develop the kind of intelligence that we've developed.

I'm not suggesting that humans perhaps aren't meant to be here. But I just think it's fascinating that we're so inconsistent with the rest of nature.

We might suppose ourselves the pride and joy of natural selection, but really that's only true insofar as we are capable of surviving longer than other species. Our bodies are so hopelessly adapted to hardship, that once our technological advantage is taken away from us, our prospects become suddenly very bleak. And maybe, if circumstances become extremely difficult to endure, we might just end up losing our big brains, and end up developing big bodies instead.