otter brain size?

[littor...@gmail.com]

No doubt, our large brains (3x chimps) have to do with our (semi)aquatic past. But why exactly? brain-specific nutrients, e.g. DHA? in freshwater- &/or in seawater? fish vs shellfish...? slow vs fast swimming?? less costs of carrying the brain weight in water?? ...?
Who has comparative dat on brain sizes in different mustelids? e.g. weasels vs river- vs sea-otters?

[JTEM is so reasonable]

littor...@gmail.com wrote:

> No doubt, our large brains (3x chimps) have to do with our (semi)aquatic past.

And present:

https://skipperotto.com/seafood-brain-food/

The beauty of Aquatic Ape is that we don't need Intelligent Design.

Just by eating the seafood diet their brains were gong to get as big
as genetics would allow. That probably wasn't exactly "Huge" at
first but it didn't have to be. Whether it took a few generations or a
few million years, the moment bigger-brain mutations began to crop
up their brains would grow even bigger!

"They'd hit the ground running," to tweak the noses of the savanna
idiots...



-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/712178904209702912

[littor...@gmail.com]

Op woensdag 22 maart 2023 om 04:11:21 UTC+1 schreef JTEM is so reasonable:

> > No doubt, our large brains (3x chimps) have to do with our (semi)aquatic past.

> And present:
> https://skipperotto.com/seafood-brain-food/

:-)

> The beauty of Aquatic Ape is that we don't need Intelligent Design.
> Just by eating the seafood diet their brains were gong to get as big
> as genetics would allow. That probably wasn't exactly "Huge" at
> first but it didn't have to be. Whether it took a few generations or a
> few million years, the moment bigger-brain mutations began to crop
> up their brains would grow even bigger!
> "They'd hit the ground running," to tweak the noses of the savanna
> idiots...

Yes, it's incredible they keep repeating the same idiocies...
Perhaps they should eat a bit more (shell)fish?

[Claudius Denk]

Lots of small brained animals eat shellfish, you fucking morons.

[JTEM is so reasonable]

Claudius Denk wrote:

> Lots of small brained animals eat shellfish

Lots of very economical cars burn gasoline. So if a car burns
gasoline is must be very economical. Right?

Or are you nine shades of stupid?




-- --

https://filmfreeway.com/BostonsScreamingOstrichFilmFestival

[littor...@gmail.com]

Op woensdag 22 maart 2023 om 22:40:36 UTC+1 schreef JTEM is so reasonable:

Somebody:

> > Lots of small brained animals eat shellfish

> Lots of very economical cars burn gasoline. So if a car burns
> gasoline is must be very economical. Right?
> Or are you nine shades of stupid?

:-D I don't know what 9 shades means, but that idiot is clearly stupid...

[Peter Nyikos]

On Wednesday, March 22, 2023 at 6:12:33 PM UTC-4, littor...@gmail.com wrote:
> Op woensdag 22 maart 2023 om 22:40:36 UTC+1 schreef JTEM is so reasonable:
>
> Somebody:

Claudius Denk, to be precise:

> > > Lots of small brained animals eat shellfish
>
> > Lots of very economical cars burn gasoline. So if a car burns
> > gasoline is must be very economical. Right?
> > Or are you nine shades of stupid?
> :-D I don't know what 9 shades means, but that idiot is clearly stupid...

Why? as matters now stand, you and JTEM are vulnerable to the old saying,
"Correlation does not mean causation" and to the far older sarcastic saying,
"Post hoc, ergo propter hoc."

Please note, I said "vulnerable," not "endangered".
:-)


By the way, Marc, I've responded to two of your posts in sci.bio.paleontology
during the last two days. I'll be looking carefully at your response today to the first one,
and look forward to hearing from you about the second one:

https://groups.google.com/g/sci.bio.paleontology/c/rrTZOHjtQO8/m/Ir8n1x7HBwAJ
Re: H. naledi, a Carnegie lecture by Lee Berger
Mar 22, 2023, 10:36:04 PM

It seems to me that you are vulnerable on this one.


Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos

[littor...@gmail.com]

Op donderdag 23 maart 2023 om 14:32:41 UTC+1 schreef Peter Nyikos:

> On Wednesday, March 22, 2023 at 6:12:33 PM UTC-4, littor...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Op woensdag 22 maart 2023 om 22:40:36 UTC+1 schreef JTEM is so reasonable:

> > Somebody:
> Claudius Denk, to be precise:

Forget that idiot: that man is stupid.
Dutch "denk" = think, but that's not what he does.
(I hope, Peter, you're not this "Denk"?)

Somebody:

> > > > Lots of small brained animals eat shellfish

JTEM:

> > > Lots of very economical cars burn gasoline. So if a car burns
> > > gasoline is must be very economical. Right?
> > > Or are you nine shades of stupid?

> > :-D I don't know what 9 shades means, but that idiot is clearly stupid...

> Why? as matters now stand, you and JTEM are vulnerable to the old saying,
> "Correlation does not mean causation" and to the far older sarcastic saying,
> "Post hoc, ergo propter hoc."

That's what the kudu runners do!

> Please note, I said "vulnerable," not "endangered". :-)
> By the way, Marc, I've responded to two of your posts in sci.bio.paleontology
> during the last two days. I'll be looking carefully at your response today to the first one,
> and look forward to hearing from you about the second one:
> https://groups.google.com/g/sci.bio.paleontology/c/rrTZOHjtQO8/m/Ir8n1x7HBwAJ

> Re: H.naledi, a Carnegie lecture by Lee Berger

> Mar 22, 2023, 10:36:04 PM
> It seems to me that you are vulnerable on this one.

Thanks, Peter, I just sent you an email,
you may forward it to sci.anthropology.paleo, if you want. --marc

[Peter Nyikos]

On Thursday, March 23, 2023 at 11:11:17 AM UTC-4, littor...@gmail.com wrote:
> Op donderdag 23 maart 2023 om 14:32:41 UTC+1 schreef Peter Nyikos:
> > On Wednesday, March 22, 2023 at 6:12:33 PM UTC-4, littor...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > Op woensdag 22 maart 2023 om 22:40:36 UTC+1 schreef JTEM is so reasonable:
>
> > > Somebody:
> > Claudius Denk, to be precise:
> Forget that idiot: that man is stupid.

On what previous experience do you base this statement?

> Dutch "denk" = think, but that's not what he does.
> (I hope, Peter, you're not this "Denk"?)

I stopped using pseudonyms on Usenet newsgroups before the 20th century ended.

Btw, I've sometimes wondered what JTEM's real name is.

> Somebody:
> > > > > Lots of small brained animals eat shellfish
> JTEM:
> > > > Lots of very economical cars burn gasoline. So if a car burns
> > > > gasoline is must be very economical. Right?
> > > > Or are you nine shades of stupid?
>
> > > :-D I don't know what 9 shades means, but that idiot is clearly stupid...
>
> > Why? as matters now stand, you and JTEM are vulnerable to the old saying,
> > "Correlation does not mean causation" and to the far older sarcastic saying,
> > "Post hoc, ergo propter hoc."

> That's what the kudu runners do!

Sorry, I am not familiar with the kudu runner concept. Please explain.

> > Please note, I said "vulnerable," not "endangered". :-)

> > By the way, Marc, I've responded to two of your posts in sci.bio.paleontology
> > during the last two days. I'll be looking carefully at your response today to the first one,
> > and look forward to hearing from you about the second one:

> > https://groups.google.com/g/sci.bio.paleontology/c/rrTZOHjtQO8/m/Ir8n1x7HBwAJ
> > Re: H.naledi, a Carnegie lecture by Lee Berger
> > Mar 22, 2023, 10:36:04 PM

> > It seems to me that you are vulnerable on this one.

> Thanks, Peter, I just sent you an email,
> you may forward it to sci.anthropology.paleo, if you want. --marc

To my university email? All I see in my Gmail account is a duplicate of the post to
which I am responding in Google Groups.


Peter Nyikos

PS Participation in sci.anthopology.paleo seems to have drastically declined since last year.
It used to be a lot more active than sci.bio.paleontology, but the two seem to be on a par now.
Any ideas why?

[JTEM is so reasonable]

Peter Nyikos wrote:

> Why? as matters now stand, you and JTEM are vulnerable to the old saying,
> "Correlation does not mean causation" and to the far older sarcastic saying,
> "Post hoc, ergo propter hoc."

Not even close. Sorry.

The human brain does require DHA. That DHA is plentiful in seafoods. Even
seafoods that aren't particularly rich in DHA far exceed terrestrial sources.
There's no model you can think of where our ancestors could go so
dependent upon DHA living on a savanna.

NOTE: I said "Model." Not "They ate bugs." Because if you want to claim that
then tell us which bugs. How much DHA they have. Etc.

There's studies that tell us even today, even after we evolved improved
capabilities in the synthesizing DHA department, that there are measurable
beneficial changes to the human brain on a DHA rich diet.

https://www.alzdiscovery.org/cognitive-vitality/blog/omega-3s-associated-with-larger-brain-volume

*Tons* more out there.

So you and everyone else find yourself "Arguing" something that is well
established. You're arguing dogma here!

There is no model that you or anyone else has ever proposed that allows
us to become so dependent upon DHA without Aquatic Ape.

That's it. Aquatic Ape explains human origins, because in the end it's our
brains that separate us from the apes.

Just put ancestors on a beach, picking up shellfish and you've explained it
all.

Coastal dispersal? That's them picking a stretch of beach clean then
moving on.

Aquatic Ape.

Multiregionalism/Regional Continuity or even Punctuated Equilibrium.
Occasionally groups pushed inland -- escaping conflict, natural disaster,
climate change or even disease. Maybe it was just the ease of following
a freshwater outlet to the sea backwards into the interior...

Once there, they adapted. Isolated, they pursued their own unique
evolutionary path. Some of the earlier ones (but by no means the
earliest) became Ardi and Lucy, eventually evolving into Chimps. Some
of the later ones were Neanderthals, Denisovans and even "Native
Americans."

Yes. The Americas were first settled by water. People arrived along the
coast, eventually pushing inland... exactly as our ilk had always done.

Savanna idiocy says all these different groups fell from the sky at different
times, and then immediately stamped off in search of an all-night Burger
King.

Alternatively, they fell out of a tree, landed on some grass and grew
upright to they could run after an antelope, only to chase it all the way to
China and beyond.





-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/711756303021883392

[Peter Nyikos]

On Thursday, March 23, 2023 at 12:55:21 PM UTC-4, JTEM is so reasonable wrote:

> [On the same day, at 12:50 PM] Peter Nyikos wrote:
>
> > Why? as matters now stand, you and JTEM are vulnerable to the old saying,
> > "Correlation does not mean causation" and to the far older sarcastic saying,
> > "Post hoc, ergo propter hoc."

> Not even close. Sorry.

I was referring to matters on this thread. Also on two threads in
sci.bio.paleontology.


Thanks for reminding me of something I last saw sometime back in 2022:

> The human brain does require DHA.

I don't recall specific information on how much is required.
Can you provide any now?

> That DHA is plentiful in seafoods. Even
> seafoods that aren't particularly rich in DHA far exceed terrestrial sources.
> There's no model you can think of where our ancestors could go so
> dependent upon DHA living on a savanna.
>
> NOTE: I said "Model." Not "They ate bugs." Because if you want to claim that
> then tell us which bugs. How much DHA they have. Etc.

I'm not saying it, but termites come to mind. Do YOU know
how much DHA they have?

Our Western aversion to bugs is not shared by other cultures.
Ever eat a witchetty grub? They are very popular with the indigenous
people of Australia, and some whites have adopted the fondness.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-02-15/witchetty-grub-dna-sheds-light-on-indigenous-bush-food/8271724

Fascinating stuff, but no mention of their DHA/omega-3 content. The closest I could
come on short notice was:

Witchetty Grubs feed solely on the sap from the roots of Acacia plants, mainly the Wijuti or Witchetty Bush (OzAnimals.com, 2011).
--http://bioweb.uwlax.edu/bio203/2011/esselman_kenn/nutrition.html

Btw I have a sister who ate several of them, including one raw.

Thanks for a flame-free post. You are off the "vulnerable" list as of now.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--

Univ. of South Carolina at Columbia
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos

[JTEM is so reasonable]

Peter Nyikos wrote:

> I don't recall specific information on how much is required.
> Can you provide any now?

The proverbial 30 second Google search:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4772061/

Again, TONS out there on the topic. This is well established.

Aquatic Ape incorporates it, explains it. Nothing else does.

> I'm not saying it, but termites come to mind. Do YOU know
> how much DHA they have?

DHA? As far as I know, none. Zip, zero & nil.

> Our Western aversion to bugs is not shared by other cultures.
> Ever eat a witchetty grub? They are very popular with the indigenous
> people of Australia, and some whites have adopted the fondness.
>
> https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-02-15/witchetty-grub-dna-sheds-light-on-indigenous-bush-food/8271724

No DHA that I'm aware of.

See? There's no model here OTHER THAN Aquatic Ape.

People are emotionally invested in an answer: The don't want
Aquatic Ape to be right. Their whole lives, their success as a
student, THEIR VALUE as a student depended entirely on how
well they regurgitated the status quo. Tell them that Aquatic Ape
is right and that means they're idiots. They were never brilliant,
they were never the best & the brightest, they were the most
obedient -- the least likely to question.

This is why they need aquatic ape to be false, even if all the facts
prove it correct.





-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/712209282631909376

[littor...@gmail.com]

Op donderdag 23 maart 2023 om 19:31:09 UTC+1 schreef JTEM is so reasonable:

> See? There's no model here OTHER THAN Aquatic Ape.
> People are emotionally invested in an answer: The don't want
> Aquatic Ape to be right. Their whole lives, their success as a
> student, THEIR VALUE as a student depended entirely on how
> well they regurgitated the status quo. Tell them that Aquatic Ape
> is right and that means they're idiots. They were never brilliant,
> they were never the best & the brightest, they were the most
> obedient -- the least likely to question.
> This is why they need aquatic ape to be false, even if all the facts
> prove it correct.

One of the most brillant of them all, prof.Phillip Tobias, admitted he had been wrong (1995):
"All the former savannah supporters (including myself) must now swallow our earlier words in the light of the new results from the early hominid deposits."

[JTEM is so reasonable]

littor...@gmail.com wrote:

> One of the most brillant of them all, prof.Phillip Tobias, admitted he had been wrong (1995):
> "All the former savannah supporters (including myself) must now swallow our earlier words
> in the light of the new results from the early hominid deposits."

Over in alt.atheism there were a number of flamewars over the years because
dogs & wolves are now considered one species, and some people learned
things differently.

"Wait. No! I was taught they were different species! So, STOP saying that!"

What I want to know is what prize was given to the last man on earth, or
woman, to give up on Piltdown Man as a hoax?

People are not informed, they are not educated. They are trained.





-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/712789255901069312

[Peter Nyikos]

Trading insults does not advance the argument. What you need is some
comparisons between the relative sizes of brains of "small brained animals
that eat shellfish" and related ones (the more closely related the better)
that do not eat shellfish.

If you try to argue with them scientifically, you may find them slipping up from
time to time, as Marc did on the following thread in talk.origins:

https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/os5qbdFmXvs
Re: human plantigrady

Marc put his worst foot forward on that thread, longitudinal arch and all. :-)

Without JTEM there, he's been rather repetitive and inarticulate. I had to quote
some things from JTEM in my post to one of Marc's critics a few minutes ago to compensate for that.

[JTEM is so reasonable]

Peter Nyikos wrote:

> Without JTEM there, he's been rather repetitive and inarticulate. I had to quote
> some things from JTEM in my post to one of Marc's critics a few minutes ago
> to compensate for that.

I originate nothing. I steal everything from everyone else, including those who
"Disagree" with me. A million years ago I once likened myself to someone
rotating a statue that I did not carve or own. The point is not who made it, but
(hopefully) a change in perspective.

Same statue, different way of viewing it...





-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/713001423881797632

[Peter Nyikos]

On Thursday, March 23, 2023 at 2:31:09 PM UTC-4, JTEM is so reasonable wrote:
> Peter Nyikos wrote:
>
> > I don't recall specific information on how much is required.
> > Can you provide any now?
> The proverbial 30 second Google search:
>
> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4772061/
>
> Again, TONS out there on the topic. This is well established.
>
> Aquatic Ape incorporates it, explains it. Nothing else does.

Has DHA been mentioned in research articles by "out of Africa" anthropologists
explaining where it came from?

> > I'm not saying it, but termites come to mind. Do YOU know
> > how much DHA they have?

> DHA? As far as I know, none. Zip, zero & nil.

In other words, you really don't know.

> > Our Western aversion to bugs is not shared by other cultures.
> > Ever eat a witchetty grub? They are very popular with the indigenous
> > people of Australia, and some whites have adopted the fondness.
> >
> > https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-02-15/witchetty-grub-dna-sheds-light-on-indigenous-bush-food/8271724
> No DHA that I'm aware of.

Thanks for admitting you don't know.

> See? There's no model here OTHER THAN Aquatic Ape.

How about a grassfed diet on the savannah? The supermarkets are
full of "100% grassfed milk" with close to 100mg of omega-3 in each glass.

And look at other advantages of the savannah. Fires trapping animals, and humans
being able to get at the meat that their tough hides would otherwise make imperviable
to anything except sharpened stone tools. Good grassfed fat on the herbivores,
and even the carnivores would have it from the herbivores.

> People are emotionally invested in an answer: The don't want
> Aquatic Ape to be right. Their whole lives, their success as a
> student, THEIR VALUE as a student depended entirely on how
> well they regurgitated the status quo. Tell them that Aquatic Ape
> is right and that means they're idiots.

Stow that last clause, Matey!
"He who knows not and knows that he knows not,
he is simple, teach him!"

> They were never brilliant,
> they were never the best & the brightest, they were the most
> obedient -- the least likely to question.

Never having seen the evidence that Marc lets dribble out in bits
and pieces, scattered over half a dozen threads...
why should they not save their questions for something
that looks dubious to them with THEIR background?

> This is why they need aquatic ape to be false, even if all the facts
> prove it correct.

Do they?

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--

Univ. of South Carolina in Columbia
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos

[JTEM is so reasonable]

Peter Nyikos wrote:

> Has DHA been mentioned in research articles by "out of Africa" anthropologists
> explaining where it came from?

I haven't done an "Exhaustive" <wink> <wink> search but not only have I not
seen any, nobody here has ever quoted such a think IN OPPOSITE TO Aquatic
Ape.

> > > I'm not saying it, but termites come to mind. Do YOU know
> > > how much DHA they have?
>
> > DHA? As far as I know, none. Zip, zero & nil.

> In other words, you really don't know.

That's NOT how reality works.

I don't have to disprove that unicorns, dragons or termite DHA. "Proof"
belongs to their proponents.

To the best of my knowledge, insects aren't even good when farmed,
like if they "Fortify" their diet with DHA.

If you want to argue differently, by all means; go ahead.

> > No DHA that I'm aware of.

> Thanks for admitting you don't know.

I admit that DHA in these insects is as unproven as the existence of
unicorns & dragons.

> > See? There's no model here OTHER THAN Aquatic Ape.

> How about a grassfed diet on the savannah?

No DHA.

You get ALA from that sort of thing. Humans aren't good at synthesizing
DHA from ALA, and that's talking 80k years AFTER a genetic mutation to
IMPROVE our abilities in that department... according to the savanna
idiots themselves.

> The supermarkets are
> full of "100% grassfed milk" with close to 100mg of omega-3 in each glass.

No they're not.

Milk can be fortified. The diet of the cows can be fortified. This absolutely
was the case in the U.K. some years ago, where (dried? shredded?) fish
included in their diet.

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/705489318794362880

THAT milk is fortified. In other words, a DHA source is added to the milk
post-cow.

As you can see, it contains 32mg. My doctor recommended ONE THOUSAND
for a daily intake!

So FORTIFIED milk is something less than 100%...

> And look at other advantages of the savannah.

There's no advantages.

Chimp population density DROPS going from the forest to the savanna.

So smaller population density, less genetic diversity...

> Fires trapping animals, and humans
> being able to get at the meat that their tough hides would otherwise make imperviable
> to anything except sharpened stone tools. Good grassfed fat on the herbivores,
> and even the carnivores would have it from the herbivores.

ALA, and we're lousy at synthesizing DHA from it. We can do it -- women better than
men -- but not very good.

Something the good Doctors has a major point on: Neanderthals!

They had bigger brains than we do, their brains supposedly matured faster than is
typical nowadays so is the good Doctor right about their intake of aquatic foods?

> "He who knows not and knows that he knows not,
> he is simple, teach him!"

Having trouble balancing this with your "If you can't prove that termites aren't stuffed
silly with DHA then I'm going to believe that they are!"

> > This is why they need aquatic ape to be false, even if all the facts
> > prove it correct.

> Do they?

Absolutely. Looking at you. Here. Now. Right now. Your "Argument" is based on
information you DON'T have -- like imaginary DHA sources on the savanna.

You don't know, you have not a lick of evidence so, TRUCK LOADS OF THE STUFF!




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/705489318794362880

[littor...@gmail.com]

Although there's a correlation between DHA & CC (cranial capacity), I still don't know why exactly.

Hn still frequently dived & back-floated:
- CC Hn-Hs>He>ape-apith,
- POS (pachy-osteo-sclerosis) He>Hn>Hs-ape-apith,
- POS esp. occipital = back-floating,
- ear exostoses (cold water),
- platycephaly (incl. supra-orbital torus & occipital bun) Hn=He>Hs,
- projecting mid-face & big nose surrounded by very large paranasal sinuses Hn>Hs,
- no chin (vs Hs),
- large thorax Hn>Hs, clavicula Hn>Hs,
- more horizontal processus spinosi Hn>Hs, deeper thorax Hn>Hs,
- flaring ilia, longer femoral necks = leg abduction Hn>Hs (He?) = swimming,
- thumb & pinky long Hn>Hs, broad terminal phalanges,
- tibia Hn<Hs,
- flatter feet Hn>Hs (He unknown?) etc.

But Hn CC > He CC, whereas Hn POS < He:
did Hn only seasonally dive in salt water? did Hn only dive in freshwater??
I'd think: Hn seasonally followed the river (Meuse, Rhine...) inland?

Isotopic analyses of Hn enamel were between sea- & freshwater-fish.
These isotopes were also "super-carnivorous":
this is often used as an "argument" for hunting Hn, but it only shows an aquatic diet.
This does not exclude occasional meat-eating, but only complete idiots believe Hn ran after antelopes, deer or mammoths??

_____

Op donderdag 30 maart 2023 om 01:55:16 UTC+2 schreef JTEM is so reasonable:

[JTEM is so reasonable]

littor...@gmail.com wrote:

> Although there's a correlation between DHA & CC (cranial capacity), I still don't know why exactly.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4772061/

So there's some important questions here...

#1. Were Neanderthals better at synthesizing DHA than we are?

#2. Were their brains as dependent upon DHA as our own?

#3: Where did they get their DHA from?

Of course that last one is probably going to get answered by the
first two. If they weren't any better at synthesizing DHA and their
brains were as dependent upon it as our own brains, they had to
be eating seafood. Period.

BUT WHAT WE DO KNOW, assuming we can believe anything is:

A) Neanderthals had bigger brains than we do.

B) Their brains matured faster.

So what we /Do/ know suggests as great or greater dependence
upon DHA. I imagine the only thing we can test for, at this point,
is genetics. We either figure out what all the genes do so we can
know these things just from looking at their DNA or...





-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/711897171629326337

[Solving Tornadoes]

On Wednesday, March 22, 2023 at 2:40:36 PM UTC-7, JTEM is so reasonable wrote:
> Claudius Denk wrote:
>
> > Lots of small brained animals eat shellfish
> Lots of very economical cars burn gasoline. So if a car burns
> gasoline is must be very economical. Right?

Address the issue, you evasive moron. So, if you now concede that consuming DHA has no known causal influence on brain size then why the fuck did you bring it up, you convoluted moron?>

[Solving Tornadoes]

On Thursday, March 23, 2023 at 9:55:21 AM UTC-7, JTEM is so reasonable wrote:
> Peter Nyikos wrote:
>
> > Why? as matters now stand, you and JTEM are vulnerable to the old saying,
> > "Correlation does not mean causation" and to the far older sarcastic saying,
> > "Post hoc, ergo propter hoc."
> Not even close. Sorry.
>
> The human brain does require DHA.

All brains require DHA, you fucking moron. Now address exceptions to your poorly formulated rule. Why don't otters have have large brains. Why don't otters carry on conversations with each other.

You mental retards bring up on odd fact and you think you've made an argument. Aquatic apers are just silly fools.

That DHA is plentiful in seafoods. Even
> seafoods that aren't particularly rich in DHA far exceed terrestrial sources.
> There's no model you can think of where our ancestors could go so
> dependent upon DHA living on a savanna.
>
> NOTE: I said "Model." Not "They ate bugs." Because if you want to claim that
> then tell us which bugs. How much DHA they have. Etc.
>
> There's studies that tell us even today, even after we evolved improved
> capabilities in the synthesizing DHA department, that there are measurable
> beneficial changes to the human brain on a DHA rich diet.

You loons just imagined these studies. You idiots can't even provide a reference.

>
> https://www.alzdiscovery.org/cognitive-vitality/blog/omega-3s-associated-with-larger-brain-volume
>
> *Tons* more out there.

Meaningless. You are way, way too convoluted to take seriously.

> Yes. The Americas were first settled by water. People arrived along the
> coast, eventually pushing inland... exactly as our ilk had always done.

LOL. Desperate stupidity.

[JTEM is so reasonable]

Solving Tornadoes wrote:

> All brains require DHA

Then a lack of same would explain your, um, your "Contribution."

But you haven't made a case. Maybe if you added more DHA to your
diet you could see these things, but you never made a case:

What percentage of an elephant's brain is DHA. How to they acquire
it?

Make a case. Pretend you're capable of rising above your severe
emotional difficulties and make a case. You know you want to, or
at least wish you could...

Back on point though: The human brain is dependent upon DHA.
Most of us are not getting enough of it now. Things were WORSE,
not better, in the past, absent the exploitation of marine resources.
So, how did a species dependent upon DHA manage to evolve
EXCEPT under circumstances where DHA was available in abundance?

Take your meds and try to respond.





-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/723715112974893056