Dan, you wrote: " any rewiring or changes made might just prove that our intellect is intelligent, meaning it has the ability to learn better ways to function, to process, not that our intellect itself is evolving."

I think you are committing the reification fallacy here (see this explainer https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Reification)

But, as Alfred J. Ayer wrote many years ago, it is not necessary "to distinguish logically between the thing itself and any, or all, of its sensible propoerties." We are only tempted to do this because language requires us to use a word to stand for all those properties. But it's important not to confuse the word with the reality behind it.

The intellect JUST IS all those functions and processes. It's not necessary to imagine a supervening entity "the intellect." And doing so, engaging in that kind of dualism, only leads to confusion, and to the belief that, even though all the functions and processes have been explained, still there must remain something - the intellect - that eludes explanation.

But that sense that something remains unexplained - and perhaps unexplainable - only exists because (to quote Ayer again), you have been "misled by a superficial grammatical feature of [your] language."