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