Neurogenic and socio-cognitive niche construction (2) [was: Socioeconomic Status and Heritability of IQ
--- On Tue, 7/31/12, clarence_sonny_williams <clarencew@...> wrote:
Bee's point is well made, and Jim Kohl's assertion that "The
hypothalamic GnRH pulse is responsible for brain development that
includes the development of our socio-cognitive niche and its link to
IQ" is patently absurd. There are innumerable factors "responsible for
JK: 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, here we have Bee claiming that I am merely asserting what my model details, and Sonny who then 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 Sonny commented on my 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 this group is 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 here, 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:
1) ecological (food),
2) social (pheromones),
3) neurogenic (hypothalamic GnRH),
4) socio-cognitive niche construction of our nutrient chemical and pheromone-dependent central nervous system.
There are too many antagonists who are also evolutionary theorists with no model of adaptive evolution other than one that involves random mutations theory, which 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. 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."
James V. Kohl
Medical laboratory scientist
- Thanks, Bee. Good luck in your conversation with Kohl.
I do want to use this opportunity to repeat my apology for using name
calling myself in regard to our previous discussions on race and
intelligence...BUT ALSO to reiterate my point: I did provide ample
resources suggesting that science does not yet have definitive answers
wherein we can declare that inherited general cognitive capacity varies
by race (and whatever category of race one cares to use). There is a
plethora of research available...on both sides of the issue. I should
not disrespect your contrary position, but rather respectfully repeat my
assertion that the science is not yet proven, regardless of what Jensen
writes on the subject.