Amadeus: > Could you point out *which* food, in your opinion, was causing the brain > enlargement of Lucy towards homo erectus (3-4-fold)? Increased animal foods, especially, those with EPA/DHEA fats, like marrow and surface fat of wild animals. Possibly there was a "seafood bottleneck" as well. Who knows? But modern chimps eating a "Lucy diet" haven't evolved a big brain--at least not as big as the x3 brain of homo sapien. Could you point out which food Lucy was eating that enabled the brain size explosion witnessed in homo sapien? > If there was a food which could have *caused* this, do you fear the > *shrinking* of one's brain if he or she doesnt eat it anymore? Food doesn't cause anything by itself. The increase in human brain size in the result of many inter-related factors. But the lack (or availability) of animal fats may be a limiting (or enabling) factor in such a change. Of course, I don't _fear_ the shrinking of a modern human brain (DNA is DNA), but I would entertain the idea that it won't function optimally without the proper dietary input (DNA must have a certain envoronment, including dietary, to bloom to its fullest). Who knows? > Or do you postulate that the brain of persons which is not eating this food > when growing up, won't grow equal fast? > I may remind you that among the whole population of 6000 million people the > brain volume is about the same. Yes, but how did the DNA coding for a bigger brain evolve? Elementary neuroscience will explain that brain size is less important than neuron _connection_, but further that the more neocortex, the more capacity for intelligence. >Only woman have in average a significantly > smaller brain volume - but it seems that this doesn't impair the cognitive > achievements of women at all. Likewise Einstein the genius had a rather > small brain volume. Likewise neanderthals with a bigger brain volume than > anatomically modern humans had shortcomings in technical developement > compared to them. > Software seems to be more important as voluminous hardware. More important? I guess it depends on how you look at it. See above. OTOH, a well-rained chimp may be more functionally intelligent than a human raised in a closet, alone. > During the time you are caring about further brain enlargement evolution > through food in humans I will concentrate on maintaining the functionality > of my few neurons already existing. With appropiate food. What exactly is that supposed to mean? Unless you are willing to experiment with a higher animal food diet you simply will not have any personal subjective information about its utility for you. >>> Lucy's diet (and successors') really was associated with brain capacity >>> increasing 2-3fold. >> >> The successors' diet, yes. > > Ahem, if Lucy ate x and homo erectus ate y and Lucy had brain volume 1 and > homo erectus had brain volume 3, which food of the both would have managed > the change? If food is involved in brain developement anyway. Both? Why not the hypothesis that homo erectus (and homo sapien) had a food unavialable to Lucy (in quantity or kind). Lucy's brain was, more or less, the size of a modern chimp, no? > Looking forward to your explanations Looking forward to you not continuously skirting the issue of animal foods/fats. Cheers, Kirt