In the past two million years, humans have experienced a massive increase in brain size, one not seen in any other species. This rapid evolution gave us brains roughly triple the volume of those of our pre-human ancestors.
But the intelligence we enjoy as a result would seem to be advantageous for all sorts of species, not just us. So why was ours the only line to go down this route?
The social brain hypothesis was a popular answer. It claims that bigger brains and advanced cognitive abilities are primarily an adaptation to social complexities, with natural selection strongly favouring individuals that can outsmart rivals….
—[An] NYU team found that among primates, brain volume is correlated with diet, with fruit-eating primates having the biggest brains.
First is the idea that brainy individuals are better foragers.
The other explanation for fruit-eaters having big brains is the energy allocation hypothesis.
This concept appeals to those, like me, who think that a diet of cooked food has been a critical influence on human evolution ever since the emergence of Homo erectus almost two million years ago.
[Read the full study here.]The GLP aggregated and excerpted this blog/article to reflect the diversity of news, opinion, and analysis. Read full, original post: Putting bigger brains down to our social nature is half-baked
For more background on the Genetic Literacy Project, read GLP on Wikipedia
