6.a) The Darwin-out experiment

The Darwin-out experiment is a proposed study on the evolution of intelligence to verify the Conditional Evolution empirically.

The idea arose in 2011 due to the remarkable adjustment of the September 2002 additional hypothesis of sexual selection regarding the initial April 2002 EDI Study - Evolution and Design of Intelligence, which implied a great sensibility of the evolutionary model of intelligence, even for groups of 10 individuals. Of course, it is always interesting to search for a more straightforward and definitive experiment.

To date, this new Darwin-out experiment is just a proposal, but it is viable thanks to the advances in biology and genetics. Moreover, the cost is not too high considering the implications if the results were positive.

The objective is to confirm the results of the EDI Study, regarding the security function of women in the sexual differentiation, the update of genetic information carried out by men, the hereditary nature of intelligence and its 10% increment in each generation. The root of the Darwin-out experiment is the linear discriminant analysis of the origin of the maternal X chromosome.

Logically, repeating the research on a large scale could validate the results of the EDI Study; however, a different experiment could also verify it.

Following the conclusions outlined in the EDI Study, if we manage to compare intelligence between individuals with and without updated chromosomes supporting intelligence, that is to say, with a generational gap, we should obtain higher IQ for the former ones.

Quantitative genetic experiment (Menssalina / Darwin-out)
Evolution of grandma and grandpa chromosomes

An individual will always have an updated sex chromosome, either X or Y, because it comes from the father. The other will not, as comes from the mother. Now, the grandfather could have updated the maternal X chromosome in the previous generation (XGF); or conversely, the grandmother did not update it (XGM). We were searching for this characteristic of a generational gap to be able to discriminate between alternative evolutionary steps of intelligence.

Due to the logic of optimization, intelligence would be mainly in the sex chromosomes. On the contrary case, the Darwin-out experiment would allow us to find the chromosome responsible for the evolution of intelligence.

The new Darwin-out experiment is exceptionally aseptic, as it does not incorporate per se any bias regarding the evolution of intelligence recognizable a priori. What’s more, if in the selection of the sample there were significative biases, it would not be a problem, as we will discuss.

The experiment consists of two stages.

  • Selection of a random sample

    The first step would be to select a random sample of 100 women of a similar age, same race and middle social stratum to reduce any possible biases, either genetic or environmental. Then, find out their IQ and the male or female source of the previous generation of the maternal X chromosome. In other words, if it comes from the maternal grandfather (XGF) or the maternal grandmother (XGM).

    Of course, the larger the sample is, the better. It is interesting to note that the intelligence test used will not influence the experiment results, from a gender perspective, whether it be balanced or not a priori, as the sample is composed of solely one gender.

    Logically, if the sample is not significantly biased, approximately 50% of the maternal X chromosomes should come from the grandfather and the other 50% from the grandmother, according to the theory of Darwin and the laws of Mendel.

    The hypothesis to verify is if the average IQ of the sample is above 100 then the proportion of XGF will be above 50%.

    An exciting and biased sample would be 100 members of Mensa ➹ (an association of people with IQ over 98% of the population). However, we believe this particular sample should outstandingly verify the above hypothesis of the evolution of intelligence; we would say the proportion of XGF would be 70% or higher. Furthermore, the cost of the Darwin-out experiment would be smaller, as the IQ test would be redundant.

  • Elimination of possible significative biases

    Perhaps the previous Darwin-out experiment would not verify the hypothesis due to biases in the statistical population or the selected sample.

    To remove or balance these biases in the initial population or the selection of the sample, we take XGF as an initial reference (XGF = 100 – XGM), and we rearrange the sample by their IQ.

    The hypothesis to contrast now is that the group consisting of 50 women with lower IQ will have a lower proportion of XGF and higher of XGM than the whole sample.

    Darwin-out experiment Remove from biases with IQ rearrange sample
    The Darwin-out experiment with IQ rearrange sample

    Following the same reasoning, we could say that if we make four groups within the rearranged sample, the proportion of XGF should be more prominent the higher the IQ of the groups is.

    Darwin-out experiment Positive correlation XGF and IQ
    The Darwinout experiment and positive correlation XGF and IQ
  • Direct casuality

    Logically, if the hypotheses about the evolution of intelligence are correct and any possible biases are balanced out, there would be direct causality between more modern chromosomes and higher or more evolved intelligence.

    If we divide the sample into two groups in the Darwin-out experiment, one of the individuals with XGM and the other of the people with XGF, the average IQ of the first group should be smaller than that of the second.

    Darwin-out experiment Groups - origin of X chromosome
    Groups - origin of X chromosome

    Of course, the number of people in each group does not necessarily have to be precisely half the number of people in the sample.

After having confirmed the hypothesis with the previously mentioned elimination or balance of biases, the following extremes become evident.

  • The existence of evolution of intelligence in each generation
  • Realization of improvements in the genetic information exclusively by males
  • Localization of the elemental functions of intelligence in the sex chromosomes X and Y or, at least, in one known chromosome.
  • The non-randomness of all genetic modifications and, therefore, the incorrectness of the theory of Darwin
  • The existence of a teleological intelligence different from the human one

The quantitative analysis of the Darwin-out experiment with a sufficiently large sample and several groups could allow us to check the coherence of the results regarding the 10% of human intelligence evolution in each generation detected in the EDI Study - Evolution and Design of Intelligence.

This modest empiric research will offer its results without biases, environmental interferences, technical intrusions or the need for a precise definition of intelligence. Moreover, to understand this experiment one does not need to have particular academic degrees or to make a considerable effort.

A male sample would also do!

As we can see in the explanation of Darwin-out experiment, the analysis with a male, female or mixed intelligence would be identical, scheming the source of the only maternal X chromosome, be it from the grandfather or the grandmother.

It is relevant to note that the objective of the experiment is not to deny or explain the possible differences between male and female intelligence; but to strengthen the Conditional Evolution scientifically and therefore, the nature of life proposed in it.




When Darwin-out finished
the design of the experiment,
he happily went to tell Mª José.

‘I’m impressed,’ she told him,
‘And now what are you going to do?’

After thinking for a moment,
Darwin-out confessed,
‘I’m going to invite a friend of mine,
and I’m going to make her a Moon salad.’

To which Mª José asked,
‘Wow, cool! How is that done?’

‘It has some pretty little tomatoes and cucumber;
you cut a tomato into two pieces
and each one eats half’,
 Darwin-out explained.

Then, Mª José exclaimed,
how romantic!




6.b) Theoretical basis for The EDI Study

The EDI Studio, already done, can be found in the corresponding book online.

The proposed model for scientific research on the theory of evolution assumes the following hypotheses:

  • Evolution with external Logical Verification of Information transmitted for the studied capacity.

  • The existence of a function ξ that measures the different potentials of the capacity.

We believe the cognitive ability represented by the IQ test fulfill both requisites of the model.

In fact, the possibility of verifying the Conditional Evolution through with the existence of the method of Logical Verification of Information (LoVeInf) is what makes the theory scientific.

Therefore, to facilitate the understanding of the model and its statistical analysis, we are going to choose the controversial subject of heritability and evolution of intelligence. Likewise, it will prove one of the main consequences of the Conditional Evolution regarding the cognitive paradigm.

Generally accepted IQ test measure the intelligence, although many authors doubt these measurements and even the unique concept of intelligence.

Numerous studies on the evolution of intelligence based on individual IQ –intelligence quotient– measurements exist. The empirical research on the evolution of intelligence have some contradictory conclusions, whereas in studies with identical twins a correlation of 80-85% is reached, for other types of kin relations, decreases to a 30%.

For us, the conclusion is that genetic inheritance is the leading cause of the evolution of intelligence, as high correlation between identical twins demonstrates.

The low correlation in the rest of the studies is due to the incorrect definition of the form in which the inheritance occurs in agreement with the exposition of the Conditional Evolution and Mendelian genetics.

Despite the adopted hypothesis about the evolution of intelligence, it could be possible that the model will not produce the expected results due to the multifunctional nature of the chosen variable, and the possibility that the genetic code could be in different chromosomes. In this cases, at least, the statistical model of the Mendelian combination of said chromosomes would be much more difficult.

Another possibility is that the results showed a heritability of intelligence of 50% but, at the same time, dominance rules consistent with the proposals of the Conditional Evolution depending on the existence of the method of Logical Verification of Information (LoVeInf), which is the primary objective of the model.

Nevertheless, the IQ refers to the relative position defined within a standardized function ξ (I) of the statistical distribution of the IQ studied for the validation process of said function.

The figure shows the shape of the Normal function ξ (IQ), which we are going to use. For each IQ value, the function indicates the accumulated probability that the IQ of the population is the same or less than the IQ reference value.

For example ξ(100) = 0.5 and the opposite function ξ_inv (Prob) = IQ, that means, ξ_inv (0.5) = 100.

Normal distribution
Normal distribution

The most generally accepted IQ values refer to the relative position which is well-defined by the statistical distribution of a Normal function ξ (IQ).

The function will link each one of its values with the accumulated percentile. Wechsler, Stanford-Binet and Cattell scales are the most commonly used. All these three scales use a normal function of average 100. However, they differ in the standard deviation –15, 16 and 24, respectively.

As its name indicates, the percentile is the percentage of the reference population which has a potential equal to or smaller than the referred distribution value. Thus, the percentile of value 100 of these distributions is 0.50 or 50%, as the mean of the Normal distribution is 100.

We will use the following case to formalize our model of evolution of intelligence. Although many more possibilities may exist, the following reasoning or similar will apply to all of them.

The result of the combination of the four chromosomes in agreement with Mendelian genetic significance will produce four different outcomes. The mathematical expected average of the capacity of the new individual will be the sum of the expected averages of each one of the cases weighed by their probabilities in agreement with the scientific theory of Conditional Evolution.

EC descendant = P(D1) C(D1) + P(D2) C(D2) + P(D3) C(D3) + P(D4) C(D4)

Evolution of intelligence
Modified Mendel laws

Considering that the assumption of verification of the received genetic information, by hypothesis, says that the significant chromosome will be the one with less capacity and, at the most, it would only be possible to express the potential of that gene in his integrity.

Regardless of previous consideration, we will suppose for simplification the cognitive ability of the smaller gene entirely expresses since it is reasonable that for a specific capacity, the greater chromosome contains practically all the information of the smaller gene plus an additional part.

Another aspect by the hypothesis of the Logical Verification of Information is the more powerful gene or chromosome –the part of the genetic information associated– of each ancestor cannot be measured since it is not expressed in its integrity because only the contrasted part will express.

Therefore, it will be necessary to estimate its value. If we always worked with probabilities of the central value of its mathematical expected average, when calculating the correlation between dependent variables and independent ones, the errors would tend to compensate.

Even if we could measure the most potent chromosome related to the evolution of intelligence, it would remain the problem of the randomness of the Mendelian inheritance.

P1a and P2b chromosomes are present in D2, while P1b and P2b are present in D4. Among these three chromosomes, only the potential of P1b, which is 100, is already known. Thus, to estimate the potential of D2 and D4 (ED2 and ED4), a previous estimate of P1a and P2b (EP1a and EP2b) will be needed.

We can reduce EP2b to its expected mean, this is, the average IQ values above P2a. Being the potential related to percentile (ξinv) the inverse function of ξ, we will obtain the following formula:

EP2b = ξinv [ξ (P2a) + (1 - ξ (P2a) / 2)]

As we can imagine, these mean value estimates are not very accurate when measured individually. However, the aim is to obtain unbiased estimates given the fact that, due to the effect of the Mendelian-chromosome combination in the evolution of intelligence, the variance of the deviations will always be very high.

In short, if the result of the analysis with real data is positive, the hypothesis that the evolution of intelligence is mostly due to genetic inheritance and that it follows the rules of evolution implied by the LoVeInf method will be demonstrated.

Once the IQ data of the empirical research is available, it will be possible to analyze the correlation between the explanatory variables defined by the model with the explained ones.

[Fortunately, the book online of the EDI Study - Evolution and Design of Intelligence presents the results confirming the proposals of the scientific theory of Conditional Evolution]

Regardless of the problem of the definition of intelligence in evolutionary psychology as a group of relational functions, in the present model of the scientific theory, there are some simplifications to ease its presentation. For example, to make more coherent estimations of the evolution of the intelligence, surely it could be necessary to include:

  • The internal improvement of the genetic information in each generation could exceed 10% regarding the evolution of intelligence.

  • The affinity filter, related to the lack of full expression of the smaller intellectual power as mentioned above.

  • Another factor could be the effect of the sexual selection related to the correlation of the intellectual power between chromosomes of both progenitors.

In any case, it is possible to make preliminary or sensitivity analysis for the estimation of the previous parameters.

Afterward, the EDI Study has confirmed the three aspects mentioned above. It used more than 500 million of coefficients of determination.


6.b.1. Research on the evolution of memory and other cognitive functions

We could check the contrary hypothesis to the verification of the received genetic information (LoVeInf), it would need a reformulation of the model for the particular characteristics we inspect.

Both assumptions comprise of the same scientific theory of the evolution, and they would take place simultaneously for different capacities.

While for reliable or mathematical memory, the hypothesis will be the same of intelligence, for standard memory and intuition, it will be the contrary one.


Oxford scientists discover a gene that affects explicitly language.
…a mutation of the gene, they have named FOXP2. The correlation is perfect: the 15 affected members of the family carry the mutated gene, and the other 14 carry the normal gene.
The mutation does not function using a breakage spread by intelligence since many of those affected have ordinary intellectual (non-verbal) levels and some have intellectual levels that are greater than their non-affected family members.

El País 04-10-2001. Nature


The issue gets complicated with other cognitive capacities such as language, semantic memory, or verbal reasoning due to the distinctive characteristics of these cognitive processes.

More comments are on the page Evolutionary genetics and neuroscience included in the book Memory, language and other brain abilities of the Global Cognitive Theory.

We would expect the contrary hypothesis regarding the inheritance of musical and artistic abilities –like with non-mathematical memory or intuition.

The problem with carrying out statistical analyses on the evolutionary psychology of these abilities is the lack of reliable values with continuous variables for these abilities; contrary to the evolution of intelligence quotients.