Hang on there. You're classifying peer-reviewed scientific papers in top journals, written by leading geneticists, whose conclusion is that there are hundreds of alleles linked to behavior, as an anecdote?!

You're asking for a level of proof about cognition that we don't have for anything because we don't understand in sufficient detail the mechanism by which brains produce mind. I don't know whether the DSM-V committee head (who?) actually was disputing that genes impact behavior, or rather mournfully noting that we still don't have any fully worked-out mechanisms yet even though we have more than enough pieces to know that they're there, but the American Psychiatric Association certainly understands that genetics impacts human behavior: https://www.apa.org/monitor/2019/03/cover-dna

This isn't an "agree to disagree" kind of situation any more than "bats are a type of bird" is an "agree to disagree" situation. The science is overwhelmingly clear on this point.

I'm not even quite sure, at this point, what you're claiming about evolution. On the one hand, you seem to be referring to actual biological reproduction. But on the other, you seem to be talking about traits that affect but are not themselves affected by biological reproduction. So you can use evolution in a colloquial (i.e. not "descent with modification") sense, the same sense that you would talk about "the evolution of toaster design". But if you mean it the technical "biological evolution" sense, (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution), I don't see how what you're talking about is even relevant.

In particular, you said, out of nowhere, that it was "evolution pertaining to random reproduction between random organisms with random genetic mutations only"...that I was insisting on?! Can you please quote me on that? Where did I insist on that? Assortive mating is a real thing. Neutral evolution is too. So is epigenetics (of various sorts). Fixation of deleterious traits happens too. And so on.