Hi arjen,

you said:
...
>Or is my way of reasoning
>making to much sense to you, so you have to protect
>your ideology with blocking out any information that
>might change your mind?

Your way of reasoning is illogical, so I don't see a need to
continue.

>But back to the argument: it doesn't make much sense
>to assume a causal relationship just because the
>development of brains and the eating of meat happened
>at approximately the same time. The increasing brain
>size can have to do with a lot of things except for
>nutrition, like the nerve support for the complex
>bipedal locomotion or, even more likely, to be able to
>deal with all the extra sensory input from changing
>climate zones and habitats. I'll bet you that the
>development for larger brains was already in progress
>before we started eating meat.
...
>We are not supposed to eat
>meat, simply because our biological make-up doesn't
>support it!

There we got it:
You claim, that humans are not supposed to eat meat because it's
against their biological make-up.

So... how could they eat up to 90% (calculated by calories IIRC)
of meat in the last ice time and still develop their brains?
One would expect that such a wrong diet (wrong according to your claims)
would make them sick and die early and not thrive and get bigger and
bigger brains.
This is simply illogical and I can't see how you can repair your type
of reasoning here.

Best regards,

Stefan