On Fri, 20 Oct 2000 06:33:20 -1000, Secola/Nieft <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

>> Then you shouldn't forget that the brain volume multiplied
>> from Lucy towards homo habilis and homo erectus.
>
>I am not forgetting this at all. You seem to be.

Could you point out *which* food, in your opinion, was causing the
brain
enlargement of Lucy towards homo erectus (3-4-fold)?

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?

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. 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.

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.

>> 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.

Looking forward to your explanations

Amadeus