Big Think: The Evolution of the Human Brain

Today on Big Think, I uncovered an article on the evolution of the human brain, an intriguing subject to me personally:

http://bigthink.com/ideafeed/our-brain-didnt-need-to-evolve-so-why-did-it

The author presents their theory on why this happens, establishing their credibility by providing evidence from notable intellectual sources and provides a link to another thorough article on the subject.  However, the articles don't really go into just why the evolution occurred in detail, and I have my own theory on why it did, which is very much different to the basic-at-best reasons the articles gave, but supports the same process. What you have to understand is that I am a proponent of the theory that modern humans evolved in what's now the middle east, in modern-day Arabia, several hundred thousand years ago before migrating to Africa. I could spend hours talking about the basis for this theory and my reasons for supporting it, but I'll try to sum it up; Arabia and the Sahara desert were, at the time we first evolved, fertile swamplands. In addition, fish and shellfish are more rich in the lipids and amino acids and other nutrients required for big brains than red meat. But their range overlapped with that of another species of human; the neanderthal. For the record, the common view of neanderthals as slightly shorter humans with bigger noses and eyebrows is incredibly inaccurate; neanderthal skulls more closely resemble those of chimpanzees than they do our own. Don't take my word for it; check out this comparison between a neanderthal skull and a human skull (http://hugequestions.com/Eric/Neanderthals/Neanderthal-and-Cro-Magnon-skulls.jpg) and this example of a neanderthal skull relative to a chimpanzee head (http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/files/2012/06/mandus_comparison.jpg). If you're still not convinced, check out this photo of a chimpanzee's skull (http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2009/12/27/Chimp.jpg). Neanderthals had a smaller jaw, less-pronounced brows, and a larger cranial capacity than chimps, but all in all, the features of their skulls are more similar. So it's safe to say that they would have been more apelike than we are. In addition, since they'd evolved in the harshest environment in the world at the time (Ice Age Europe), they were much stronger than we are, and were likely almost exclusively carnivorous, owing to a lack of edible plants. It's a fact that neanderthals cannibalized one another (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/12/061205-cannibals.html), so it isn't much of a stretch to imagine them viewing their scrawny southern cousins as a food source. Back then, modern humans were in the middle of the food chain. Our early, less complex-brained answers could think up ways to fend off the big cats and wild dogs they would have faced regularly, but neanderthals, as another species of human, would have been a bigger challenge. I believe that the early humans would have had to think of creative ways to deal with the neanderthals, who would have been much stronger and just as smart as we are, and that our shellfish-fuelled brains would have expanded to boost our problem solving techniques to give us a leg up on the neanderthals. Of course, this took time, and I believe that the neanderthals eventually forced us into Africa; however, what occurred in the middle east acted as a catalyst for change in the human brains. Over the next few tens or hundreds of millennia, we would have perfected our problem-solving skills in the African savannas, as suggested by the article, so that by the time we went back into the middle east and entered Eurasia, we were ready for round two with the neanderthals. And we came out on top.