---
DonMatesz <[log in to unmask]>
Amadeus Schmidt <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>But brain developement as an evolutionary step IMO can't be seen
>as mere size. Or we could see a decrease from Neanderthal to Cro
>
>Magnon.
>But Neanderthals had a limited intellectual performance, e.g.
>the slow developement of tools and absence of art
>(These observations taken from Jared Diamond "The third Chimpanzee")
>
>Cro Magnons made the big leaps forward with a fast developement of
>tools and developement of art (cave art, fishhooks, nets
>advanced clothing and stone tools, to list some).
>All known hunter/gatherer populations of today are Cro Magnons,
>Australian Aboriginals, Inuit and !Kung.
>

You really should read Nutrition and Evolution by Michael Crawford and David Marsh.
Crawford and Marsh note:  "the Neanderthal skull was shaped differently from ours,
sweeping back form heavy eyebrow ridges where ours rises in the near-vertical line of the
forehead.  This meant that it could not have accomodated the large frontal lobes that form
a major part of our cerebral cortex.  It also meant that the Neanderthal man's skull was
in that way similar to the skulls of the big cats...This streamlined shape is a common
feature of all the top land carnivores.  It is well suited to accomodate the parts of the
brain used to control motor function, which are in the middle, and the regions dealing
with sight, smell and hearing which are behind and below....Neanderthal man might well
have had those regions developed to a high degree of effciency and it is significant that,
judging from the  fossil remains, he appears to have been carnivorous.  Indeed, it has
been suggested that a distinguishingfeature between Neanderthal man and Homo Sapiens is
that the Neanderthals did not eat fish...."

Crawford and Marsh argue that the development of the forebrain is dependent upon access to
a large amount of omega-3 EFAs in the form of DHA in particular.  Since Neanderthal man
had a skull shaped like a big cat we know he had a small forebrain.  It is not just total
brain size, but forebrain size that is important.

"Across the world man's close link with water and its foods is so obvious that its
significance has been missed.  The idea of a savannah origin is quite inconsistent with
human physiology...."  the details I don't have time to post right now, but there are at
least 8 reasons to reject the idea of a savannah origin, among them the lack of sufficient
DHA in the tissues of land animals.

Don