On 9/19/13, I posted here and to the evolutionary psychology yahoo group (msg #152240) on the link between Aquatic Ape Theory, dietary DHA, my model, and brain development. Today, the moderator of the human ethology yahoo group posted a 9/13/13 link (msg # 49666) to Diet During Pregnancy and Early Life May Affect Children’s Behavior and Intelligence
Excerpt: “Eating oily fish is also very beneficial, not only for the omega-3 fatty acids they which are ‘building blocks’ for brain cells, but also for the iodine content which has a positive effect on reading ability in children when measured at age nine.”
My comment: On 3/11/13 I wrote in msg 49887 to the human ethology group: “In my model, for example, new alleles (genes) in a population are nutrient-dependent and pheromone-controlled in species from microbes to man. On 9/13/13, in a report on the only experiment ever performed in the context of mutations theory, that ridiculous theory was refuted. New alleles (genes) that are associated with mutations are not fixed in the genome and therefore they cannot contribute anything at all to adaptive evolution.
In my posts yesterday, I quoted myself: “Just as the influence of diet and pheromones can be in the larval stages or in other developmental stages of insects, it can also be in the pre- and postconception stages of mammals, including humans (Fowden et al., 2006; Mennella, Jagnow, & Beauchamp, 2001). For example, pheromones and nutrition could alter levels of maternal hormones, gestational events, and postnatal outcomes via their direct effect on maternal GnRH and the placenta. The outcomes might not always be positive, which means the possible effects should not be ignored. That would be like ignoring the likely effects of docosahexaenoic acid in the maternal and postnatal diet on LH and on neuronal development in the mammalian brain (Lassek & Gaulin, 2011). — excerpted from Kohl, J.V. (2012) Human pheromones and food odors: epigenetic influences on the socioaffective nature of evolved behaviors.
In my posts yesterday, I also quoted “A practical point is that random mutation and selection for survival have little predictive power. However, Darwin’s “Conditions of Existence” has powerful predictive power. It predicts dependence of human neural evolution on DHA.”
Docosahexaenoic acid (DHA)
The point to be made, again and again, especially since the refutation of mutation-driven evolution, is that textbook knowledge will typically not take you from nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled invertebrate adaptive evolution via ecological, social, neurogenic, and socio-cognitive niche to human neural evolution that depends on docosahexaenoic acid (DHA). There is, however, a model for that. And, it’s my model.
See also: Child’s sex is associated with the mother’s diet (2008); In Utero Olfactory Learning in Mice (2011); Maternal Diet during Pregnancy Induces Gene Expression and DNA Methylation Changes in Fetal Tissues in Sheep (2013); and Feierman’s oft-touted claims about random mutations:
Had Feierman not consistently ignored and/or denigrated my works and touted mutations theory instead of RNA-mediated events, you would have known about the link from DHA to human brain development at least one year ago, and might then have learned why I have considered to challenge ridiculous misrepresentations of biological facts made by Feierman and others who make academically irresponsible statements like this one: