pearl wrote:

> "Leif Erikson" > wrote in message k.net...
>
>>ant and dec wrote:
>>
>>
>>>S. Maizlich wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>ant and dec wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>pearl wrote:
>
> <..>
>
>>>>>>Proc Biol Sci. 1998 Oct 22;265(1409):1933-7.
>>>>>>Visual specialization and brain evolution in primates.
>>>>>>Barton RA.
>>>>>>Department of Anthropology, University of Durham, UK.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Several theories have been proposed to explain the evolution of
>>>>>>species differences in brain size, but no consensus has emerged.
>>>>>>One unresolved question is whether brain size differences are a
>>>>>>result of neural specializations or of biological constraints
>>>>>>affecting the whole brain. Here I show that, among primates,
>>>>>>brain size variation is associated with visual specialization.
>>>>>>Primates with large brains for their body size have relatively
>>>>>>expanded visual brain areas, including the primary visual cortex
>>>>>>and lateral geniculate nucleus. Within the visual system, it is, in
>>>>>>particular, one functionally specialized pathway upon which
>>>>>>selection has acted: evolutionary changes in the number of
>>>>>>neurons in parvocellular, but not magnocellular, layers of the
>>>>>>lateral geniculate nucleus are correlated with changes in both
>>>>>>brain size and ecological variables (diet and social group size).
>>>>>>Given the known functions of the parvocellular pathway, these
>>>>>>results suggest that the relatively large brains of frugivorous
>>>>>>species are products of selection on the ability to perceive
>>>>>>and select fruits using specific visual cues such as colour.
>>>>>>The separate correlation between group size and visual brain
>>>>>>evolution, on the other hand, may indicate the visual basis of
>>>>>>social information processing in the primate brain.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>PMID: 9821360 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
>>>>>>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&dopt=Abstract
>>>>>
>>>>>Thanks again.
>
>
> My pleasure. Thanks for bringing it up. The "Christmas
> Lecture" on Ch5 is frankly driving me up the wall. grrr.

No one cares, whore.


>>>>>I have moved my position on whether meat had a major part to play in
>>>>>human evolution. I will read more, but on balance there seems little
>>>>>evidence to support that it did.
>
>
> Apart from helping humans survive times of scarcity, ..no.

False. Humans evolved as a meat-eating species from
the outset.

>
>>>>It is UNDISPUTED by evolutionary biologists that meat played an
>>>>indispensable role in human evolution. Meat's role was both direct and
>>>>indirect. The direct role was in providing the massive amount of
>>>>protein needed for brain development. The indirect role is as an
>>>>organizing principle of human activity.
>
> [...crap...]
>
>>>I need to investigate more. The reference above seems to give a strong
>>>case for a "visual specialization" evolution and it states that "no
>>>consensus has emerged", but I'm happy learn and admit my ignorance on
>>>brain evolution theories.
>
>
> 'There is a popular notion that anthropology can offer useful
> insights for forming the basis of a dietary philosophy.

It's what *you* do with your ****witted "frugivory"
bullshit.

>
>>What is not in dispute is that the earliest hominids
>>and their pre-hominid ancestors *all* naturally ate
>>meat. To say then that meat played no role in their
>>evolution is just factually wrong.
>
>
> You cannot support your *claims* with evidence

Been there, done it.