Kirt:
>> Carnivores, on the whole, _do_ have larger brains that non-carnivores.

gary:
> relative to body size or in absolute terms?  I'll check that out.
> is that really a good measure?  carnivores are generally lean - doesn't
> this skew the comparison?

Relatave to body size, which is the only comparison that matters. Do check
it out.

> any known comparisons between vegetarian humans from birth and carnivorous
> humans?

Not that I know of. Raw vegan children are often underdeveloped though.

> then again, is bigger (relatively speaking) necessarily better?
> there must be neurological connections and
> efficiencies that are independent of brain size.

Yeah, the amount of cortex is most important.

>> It correlated because they happened simultaneously. Correlation is easy to
> show and quite clearcut in this case.
>
> you're saying human diet in human populations from millions of years ago,
> as compared to brain size is clearly known?  hard to believe.
> anthropology goes on scant evidence.

There is lots of evidence.

> I don't see how there's any way that one can be so certain that meat eating
> caused increased brain size, although it could be true.
> I simply don't know enough and nutritional factors
> to say that extra fats or proteins, or whatever, enables increased brain
> size.

The same could be said for sociality.

> why not simply the social dynamics of meat sharing,
> and not the nutrients, as I have read recently?

Why not the other way around or both?

>> I like the "Aquatic Ape Theory" as a personal favorite, but I don't admit
> it
> to just anyone. ;)
>
> I read some refutation of that recently that made more sense than
> the theory itself...

Yeah, it has pretty much been trashed. :(

>> And I feel I owe one to you, one of the more level-headed vegan folks IMO.
>
> thanks.  must be that miniscule amount of animal foods I guiltily sneak
> behind everyone's back keeping me sane.  ;-)

Maybe you had a good childhood. ;)

Cheers,
Kirt