We could also argue that since brain size decreased after cooking was 
practiced, then cooking decreases brain size.
Seems likely, considering the loss of nutrients in cooked meat compared 
to raw.

William


Geoffrey Purcell wrote:
>
> As far as cooking is concerned, it's already been pointed out that the average hominid 
> brain-size heavily expanded in size long before cooking was ever invented, so there's 
> clearly no link between cooking and brain-size - for that matter, there wasn't that much  
> difference in brain-size between archaic homo sapiens(of around 300,000 years ago) and 
> Modern Man, whereas the difference in brain-size between Homo Erectus and modern 
> man or between Homo Australopithecus and Home Erectus was pretty large - so if one 
> were to take the line that absolutely all current dietary habits re cooking or whatever 
> were directly related  
> to greater  brain-size , then that would imply that eating raw meat was far more effective 
> than eating any cooked-food(meats  or tubers) as regards increasing the average hominid 
> brain-size.
>
> At any rate, as www.beyondveg.com pointed out, our Neolithic ancestors greatly 
> increased their intake of starchy foods, yet their average brain-size(by comparison to 
> their Palaeo ancestors) actually decreased in tandem with this practice(by c. 8%), thus 
> appearing to indicate that eating tubers actually decreases brain-size. 
>
> Geoff
>
>
>
>