As indicated in the literature linked here, IQ becomes increasingly heritable with maturity, and evolution of the brain in highly encephalized human species is linked to larger olfactory bulbs and a relatively wider orbitofrontal cortex, and the accelerated recruitment of new brain development genes into the human genome, as well as integrated with other aspects of human skull shape.
Given the model I have detailed that links the epigenetic effects of nutrient chemicals and pheromones (via olfactory/pheromonal input) directly to brain development and behavior, how could the link to IQ not be crystal clear.
Anyone who is familiar with the basic principles of biology and levels of biological organization, which are required to link what we eat and the presence of conspecifics (e.g., our social life) directly to adaptive evolution via ecological, social, neurogenic, and socio-cognitive niche construction, would recognize the link to IQ as a function of adaptively evolved socio-cognitive niche construction. Yet, some of my antagonists claim that I am merely asserting what my model details. Another antagonist points and sputters that my claim about the central role of the hypothalamic gonadotropin releasing hormone (GnRH) pulse generator is patently absurd. Did I ever mention the diet-responsive hypothalamic neurogenic niche?
Does anyone remember the last time they saw someone comment on any claim for the involvement of a neurogenic niche? Here’s a reminder: Are we supposed to be impressed by some fancy sounding name like “neurogenic”? What is “socio-cognitive niche construction”? Does anyone remember anyone else who has ever offered a model of adaptive evolution for comparison to my details of ecological, social, neurogenic, and socio-cognitive niche construction?
If evolutionary psychologists are left to discuss random mutations and other theories, rather than to discuss models based on biological facts, it will be due to the lack of intelligent life in their discussion groups, despite the few participants who have commented positively on my contributions. There are too few participants that seem capable of pattern recognition or capable of integrating pattern recognition into a model of adaptive evolution. For example:
1) ecological (food),
2) social (pheromones),
3) neurogenic (hypothalamic GnRH),
and
4) socio-cognitive niche construction of our nutrient chemical and pheromone-dependent central nervous system is a recognized pattern.
It’s exemplified in the honeybee model organism — although the bees — like most evolutionary theorists — are unaware of cause and effect. But the bees have an excuse; they lack consciousness!.
For comparison, there are too many semi-conscious or largely unaware antagonists who are also evolutionary theorists with no model of adaptive evolution other than one that involves random mutations theory. That means they have no model; they have only that theory, which has never been supported by evidence from biology.
That theory (e.g., of random mutations) is worthless given the enlightenment provided by neuroscientific studies during the last two decades or more. Natural selection “selects” for nutrient chemicals. Sexual selection “selects” for pheromones. There is nothing random about that. My time is wasted on those who assert their theories with no scientific support from what is currently known about biological evolution in species from microbes to man. What’s currently known is that “Olfaction and odor receptors provide a clear evolutionary trail that can be followed from unicellular organisms to insects to humans.”
