Kirt:
>> Huh???????? The huge human brain is over half fat by nutrient analysis--so
> is a cow's tiny brain for that matter. Where are these numbers from????????
> No reference, of course.
gary:
> I don't know - I assume he's referring to daily brain cell turnover, which
> would be minute, and key to his point.
Daily brain cell turn over after development? Or what, during devolopment?
Those kinda numbers need some context as well as a reference, IMO.
Especially since it ends up being the crux of the argument, if I followed
the line of reasoning correctly.
>> So why didn't every animal on Earth evolve a big brain?
>
> why didn't carnivores evolve a big brain? as compared to herbivores? or did
> they?
On the nosey! (Young Frankenstein) Carnivores, on the whole, _do_ have
larger brains that non-carnivores. Indeed, the only real brain competition
to humans are dolphins with a highly carnivorous diet. Veg-eating primates
are the smallest brained; fruit eaters larger brained, and humans the winner
in brain size, self-grandizing ego, and able to believe things that aren't
so--which of course, is everything, since neo-cortical symbolizing can never
be reality out there.
> do you not believe that social organization issues were a contributor
> to brain growth?
Of course! Animal foods were likley an important part of a _much_ larger and
intricate web of causes and effects.
> you didn't address a couple issues, one being that the brain is not
> bigger, but the body is smaller (or something like that)
The human brain is bigger, and more highly developed, in relation to the
body. That is what makes humans unique. I don't see how viewing it as the
body being small in relationship to the brain has anything to do with
arguing that animal foods weren't an important enabling factor. What am I
missing?
Besides the body is not smaller at all in absolute terms. The famous "Lucy"
was some four feet tall, where paleolithic human males averaged over 6 feet
(neolithic less than 6 feet). Qubbles can be made about the the details of
the trend but there is little doubt the trend in body size was also
increasing.
Another point worth making: much human brain growth happens after birth--the
limits of the size of the birth canal in upright walking women is thought to
limit the size of the head, which is part of why human infants are born so
very immature and dependant. Further, it appears that the more intelligent
an animal is, the longer it takes to reach full maturity. Was this dealt
with in the book or in Coleman's cribbing of it? If I remeber correctly it
is a pretty clear correlation.
So the argument that the human brain grows at the same rate in all animals
(which is shown false in the very article you pointed to, if we are to trust
the validity of the first graph) and humans only grow their brains longer
temporally (and, of course, spacially, in the end result), so it is not the
brain growing big but the body growing smaller (which isn't the case in
prehistoric reality), and therefore human beings are nothing special in
terms of brain evolution, and then to tack on (as Coleman seems to do) that
all this reasoning shows that animal foods had nothing whatsoever to do with
it--well, can you see how limited the stance appears?
I'd love to see the book and see how out of context (or not) it was used by
Coleman with his "a priori's" so clearly in tact. Hell, maybe I'll pop for a
copy. I _love_ pop anthropology! I really do.
>> And is
> irrelevent to any argument correlating the expansion of the human brain
> with
> animal foods, which is clearly correlated.
>
> I don't see where that is correlated.
> a lot of conjecture about dietary makeup and brain size over time.
> It is certainly not clearcut or causal in my mind at all.
It correlated because they happened simultaneously. Correlation is easy to
show and quite clearcut in this case. Cause is not, I agree. But there are
certainly supporting arguments as are found on beyondveg. If the two changes
were entirely coincidental, as I assume is being argued, then shouldn't
there be some support that they were? I don't see any support in the
article. What am I missing?
Indeed, one could argue just for the sake of arguing that sociality was
coincidental, and simply _enabled_ by the increased brainsize, and not
causal. It really remains a mystery how the explosion (a huge and unique
explosion in brain evolution history) happened and why? Nothing like it has
ever happened before and it remains extraordinary and somwhat mysterious.
But dismissing such an important factor as increased animal foods makes
about as much sense as dismissing bipedalism or sociality.
I like the "Aquatic Ape Theory" as a personal favorite, but I don't admit it
to just anyone. ;)
>> I'll not be wasting more time "critiquing" vegan-edge stuff. It has its
> audience...
>
> thanks for taking the time,
You're welcome. I am sure many folks see more to point out, but I hated to
see you go begging on the issue. ;) And I feel I owe one to you, one of the
more level-headed vegan folks IMO. Largely because you make no bones about
"just believing" that animal foods aren't needed, and don't need to make up
the rest of the stuff so many vegans are apt to.
Cheers,
Kirt
|
