This does seem to appear in height data http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_height#History_of_human_height http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_height#History_of_

This does seem to appear in height data http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_height#History_of_human_height http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_height#History_of_human_h... There is a fundamental mistake in assuming a "couple generation" linear trend will continue to infinity providing us with 30 foot tall men with IQs of 200+. We are probably at or around peak height and peak IQ right now for various rather obvious income inequality reasons, and we can expect both to decline in the future. There is a coupling between womens pelvis size and newborn head size and medically assisted survival during childbirth which could provide some multigenerational effect to growth. There have been a lot of arguments relying on generational inheritance of intelligence / IQ, however: "As Flynn pointed out in his Ted Talk on the Flynn Effect, in 1900 only 3% of Americans performed "cognitively demanding" jobs - now the figure is 35%" That would imply the percentage of humanity where cognition has no effect on their job, and presumably lifestyle, is at least 65% and has always historically been higher, as high as 97%, so an evolutionary argument for IQ growth seems extremely weak. It would be as if doctrine were peacock females select their mates based on tail feather size leading to large tail feathers, yet actual data shows 97% to 65% of actual living peacocks come from bald ancestors.