Blarman's personal attacks and feuding have no place here. Public posts are open for anyone to respond to and comment on. That is what discussion is. Blarman does not restrict that with a belligerent, presumptuous "questions I ask of you".

I'll thank you to respond to questions I ask of you and not on behalf of someone else. I have no interest in your interpretations of what other people write.

Ayn Rand did not speculate that there is another species among us. She explicitly said that those with the anti-conceptual mentality do not "choose" to develop and learn how to use their consciousness in order to fully live as a human by choice. Whatever evidence there may be about some other human-like "species" still living somewhere on earth and distinguished by development of consciousness as inherited (which would be interesting), Ayn Rand was talking about ordinary people mixed in with everyone else and part of the same families but who by their own choices do not develop their own conceptual faculty. That is not a separate species.

Biological evolution relies on choice only indirectly in which kinds of people propagate and survive in accordance with the capacities they are born with: Choices made in life do not change genes determining future offspring.

How Ayn Rand thought that those of the anti-conceptual mentality might represent what others had called a missing link in evolution isn't clear (it wasn't clear to her either). Is there any evidence of variations in genes correlated with degrees of ability to choose to think?

By "modern" he is referring to the recent history of mankind with respect to what is in fact now. To reject "modern" as "irrelevant" because the term is "entirely relative" is to reject the use of a valid concept that everyone else understands. The frame of reference is established by the context.

It is not "better" to ask whether people have "grown" in their thinking. It is a different question than what he is asking in the context of evolution.

One point of the article is that more than half-a-dozen homo species existed before we who are called homo sapiens. There now is evidence that not all of these species may have perished entirely. And one difference between these species must have been the nature of consciousness--especially volitional or conceptual consciousness. And once evolution resulted in volitional consciousness, further evolution to some extent relied on...choice... Ayn Rand speculated that another species might still be among us, characterized by consistent failure to exercise volitional consciousness and so becoming, as she characterized types, Attila or the Witchdoctor (all force or all mysticism, not reason).

It usually seems to me, from reading GG comments, that many of those who comment do not read the article, but only the title and other comments. Then, they criticize the article in ways suggestive of unfamiliarity with it.

Evolution is stalled. Socialism and lack of natural predators and challenges has shut it down. Now we de-evolve to another semi-stable point to be defined by tbd parameters.

I question that such was ever the case. "Modern" refers only to the time period in which we are now. Modern is irrelevant to someone who lived hundreds or thousands of years ago because it is entirely relative. Thus people always live in their respective "modern" ages.

Better to ask whether or not people have grown and embraced principles of rationality and personal accountability. To me, it doesn't matter what age someone lived in: there have been tyrants and saints in all ages of history. I don't embrace the false narrative that progression in time necessarily begets progression of ideals.

Regarding evolution, i often tell my wife that the reason I can't find things is because as having evolved from primitive hunters, men have trouble seeing things that aren't moving.

One of the strengths of an alert human mind is a strong pattern detection. Being able to assess either physical or theoretical images and detect what doesn't fit the pattern is a natural consequence of having to detect game that has natural camouflage, or select edible vegetation from inedible surroundings. I discovered that with enough information it's possible to determine errors in a project without a long, involved analysis. The errors seem to stand out as not belonging to the correct pattern. Some people call this ability "gut feel" or "intuition," but I believe it's a natural survival skill unconsciously applied. Objectivism is a form of pattern matching skill. We instinctively know that certain behaviors just don't fit a pattern for successful outcomes.

The topic has nothing to do with set theory. Telling us that logical distinctions help understanding between "two parties" does not offer us anything new.

The principles of logic are used in all stages of gaining knowledge, from identifying something new or unexplained to certainty of a scientific principle or theory. Donway's speculative article "Does Objectivism Have a Rendezvous with Evolution?" shows poor understanding of Ayn Rand as he tries to attribute a "problem" to her views or mental state(?). She said she was not familiar enough with the science of evolution to be able to evaluate it and therefore did not say much about it. That's it. There is no "But Ayn Rand" in contrast with or clashing with any science. She knew the difference between general philosophy and the special sciences and did not speculate.

This is a presumptuous, intentionally demeaning personal 'instruction' that does not belong here. "All or nothing", in the sense of integrity and consistency of Ayn Rand's principles (she does not use the phrase "all or nothing") does not mean omniscience and is not to be used without regard to context. Galvin doesn't define what he means by it; he just uses it as a way to undermine objectivity and consistency. No one needs Galvin's lecturing that there are continuous gains in human knowledge or that an advancing status of various fields requires proof as more information and better ideas become available -- let alone his impugning that anyone in particular, whom he doesn't even know, does not know it and needs to be instructed.

Ayn Rand did know the difference between life and inanimate matter and the "truth" of man's rational faculty in contrast to lower animals. She knew that our rational faculty is the essential distinguishing factor conceptualizing man in distinction with lower animals regardless of other similarities and differences. It's not a tentative "assumption".

What time frames are you talking about? There are two potential sources of advancement: evolutionary changes allowing for better brains, and the accumulation of knowledge that can be learned and passed on. The second of those explains the last few hundred years in particular.

"Man cannot survive as anything but man. He can abandon his means of survival, his mind, he can turn himself into a subhuman creature." ... This "“creature,” she hypothesized, may be among us, today"

I surmise she was on to something akin to what I have observed. These creatures do exist and primarily are a hybred of pre-conscious human and non-conscious Nephilim...we call them: the parasitical humanoidal ruleless delete class or better yet...the great unwashed that have assumed rule over Conscious Human value creators and producers in an upside down, inside out and backwards paradigm.

A more (unspoken) modern day anthropological view is that Humans did not evolve from lesser species, we were a species unto ourselves but devolved as a result of interbreeding with the Nephlim species. Reportedly, the ruless class claim decendentry of Nimrod of Babylon...a self professed Nephilim.
Just an observation of their behaviors throughout history will tell you that they are not human, not conscious with no conscience...just a disconnected bicameral brain in a human looking body.

Rand had every interlectual right to question the validity of Darwin's theory. (inter-lectual: integrated knowledge or wisdom).

It doesn't get anymore bizarre than that...we must test these creatures, trace their dna and see if any of that might be accurate.

I would say that Darwin was wrong on the accounts of one species evolving into another but perhaps correct on inner species evolution. We see that with the evolution of the 4 bloodtypes, skin colors and genotype body and head shapes; I would also add: the evolution of self aware introspection that resulted in a connection to the Conscious Mind. (Julian Jaynes; The Breakdown of the bicameral, (brain), Mind.)

I have only thin knowledge about it, but I am confused as to why anatomically modern humans existed so long before behaviorally modern humans.

I will grant you that set theory is a valuable and underutilized tool. Differentiating between that which is one thing and therefore is not something else can help two parties to understand each other better.

“It is impossible for the same thing to belong and not to belong at the same time to the same thing and in the same respect”. Aristotle (384-322 B.C.E.).

Also,
Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand
Part 1, Non-Contradiction
Part 2, Either-Or
Part 3, A is A

The names of the parts are not questions but are precise statements.

Rand, like some of us sometimes (compare with Alice who can believe in several contradictory things before breakfast) was unsure about some issues. I prefer the clarity of unambiguous clear statements when the logic demands. This is the strength of Rand's writing and thought.
Where Rand was unsure, there is no sense in us being unsure when, now, proof exits.

To my all or nothing friend ewe, please read this. There is more to be learned in this here world of ours.

Our hero, Ayn Rand, was not so bold as to proclaim absolute truths regarding the human mind and/or what life is, or what human is. She was careful to distinguish between strong assumptions or hypothesis and declarative "must be" truths.