Earlier quoted context omitted.
Physics - Concepts of atom and theory of relativity were explicitly stated by an Indian Philosopher around 600 BC. Looks pretty accurate to me. All the best science comes from philosophers backed by feelings and visions instead of math.
Problem is that anyone could come up with the concept of the atom, and even relativity is not beyond the bounds of possibility. We are all genetically identical to the earliest Homo Sapiens who left Africa. And the ones who stayed in Africa. Any one of those people who had the fortune to have a life of diverse experience and the spare time needed to think about things, would have discovered any number of supposedly m…
The last sentence is manifestly not true (we're not even genetically identical to each other, much less all of us to the earliest example of H. Sapiens, or even the earliest examples of H. Sapiens sapiens.)
And even if it was, the first doesn't follow from it: intellectual capacity may have an upper bound set by genetics, but realizing it is more than genetics, its environment starting in the vary early environment.
And nutrition is, manifestly, a big part of that.
> The only real advantage that we have today is the law of large numbers and the network effect.
And lots of other things; to name just one key one, the adoption of the scientific method which does a lot to help identify the useful ideas from the attractive-but-useless ones. Even if we were no better at thinking up ideas, we are a lot better at validating ideas, and its not just through numbers, its through approach. Because of an idea that was thought up, and widely adopted.