I agree that one problem with the wand is that it is not general. The same thing is true of paperclippers. Just as the wand is limited to converting things to gold, the paperclipper is limited to making paperclips.

But calling evolution intelligent is to speak in metaphors, and that indicates that your definition of intelligence is not a good one if we wish to speak strictly about it.

Humans certainly do recognize patterns in patterns. For example, we recognize that some things are red. That means recognizing a pattern: this red thing is similar to that red thing. Likewise, we recognize that some things are orange. This orange thing is similar to that orange thing. Likewise with other colors. And within those patterns we recognize other similarities, and so people talk about "warm" and "cool" colors, noticing that blue and green are similar to each other in some way, and that orange and red are similar to each other in another way. Likewise we have the concept of "color", which is noting that all of these patterns are part of a more general pattern. And then we notice that the concepts of "color" and "sound" have an even more general similarity to each other. And so on.

The neural networks you spoke of do nothing like this. Yes you might be able to apply them to those various tasks. But they only generate something like base level patterns, like noticing red and orange. They do not understand patterns of patterns.

I think that saying "only about a million" years was needed for something implies a misunderstanding, at least on some level, of how long a million years is.

I agree that babies have the ability to be intelligent all along. Even when they are babies, they are still recognizing patterns in patterns. None of our AI programs do this at all.