> It looks to me like the author was building a point about evolutionary bootstrapping of brain growth by eating meat He actually spoke to 2 separate anthropol

> It looks to me like the author was building a point about evolutionary bootstrapping of brain growth by eating meat He actually spoke to 2 separate anthropologists who had different views about our evolutionary diet and he chose to weave them into his own narrative. The second anthropologist, Richard Wrangham wrote the book "Catching Fire: How Cooking Made Us Human" and as you can see below he strongly contradicts the notion that we ate much raw meat http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/27/books/27garn.html?_r=1&ref=books http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/27/books/27garn.html?_r=1&#38... Instead of writing about the differing opinions the author choses to strongly favor one view hide the fact that other is even in disagreement. > Nothing to get bent about. I think that deliberate twisting the of truth is something to legitimately get 'bent' about. The sad thing is the more than 50% of the people who see this will come away thinking they are basically saying 'meat makes you smarter' when neither of the views presented suggest anything of the sort.