I don't have any ideological reason for objecting to this, but I do have a practical problem with it. Human beings are social animals, we take care of each other, especially children, and we are pretty much helpless for the first few years of our lives and not fully capable until almost into puberty.

In other words, it really doesn't matter how our intelligence or other cognitive factors evolved, by the time we're old enough to reproduce we've been kept alive for years by our social network, not our physical or mental characteristics. Natural selection wouldn't have a chance to work on our intelligence. All children are by definition intellectually unable to survive and need constant care and supervision of some sort until they are old enough to fend for themselves.

We might be evolving in other ways (resistance to disease, ability to walk long distances, climactic adaptations, etc), but by the time our brains start coming in handy we're already breeding. I believe our intellectual evolution stopped right around the time we started using primitive tools and fire, and has probably declined somewhat ever since.

I would imagine our fastest and most significant "mental" evolution has been in social skills, such as language and persuasiveness. To a primitive hominid, the ability to manipulate the group dynamic and communicate and cooperate with the others would have been much more important than the ability to outhink a leopard or locate edible roots. In other words, it makes more sense from an evolutuionary standpoint to plug into the group mind than to work on improving your own.