that's because you didn't ask that question.
you asked "is brain size important".
You can't be serious. I've asked people multiple times throughout this thread to disprove that smarter people do not have larger brains. I must have said that at least 4 or 5 times already. You're just not reading.
i read somewhere that 25% of a persons heat is lost through their head
As have I.
a persons liver benefits a person in a massive way.
so do a persons:
kidneys
heart
genitals
none of which consume the stated 25% metabolism.
Do you really know that none of those consume 25% of the body's metabolism? Are you a doctor? Anyway, assuming you are right--the fact that the brain consumes so much more, doesn't that serve as an indictaor regarding the importance of its utility within its environment?
it seems the obvious answer isn't so obvious.
Okay. So you think the body would have no problem in investing large amounts of energy into a structure even if it did not benefit it in some massive way? Nooooo man. That would not happen. That's not how nature works. Superfluous, unnecessary things are discarded. We keep only things that are essential. We may however, keep things that are unnecessary if they do not require a lot of resources, ie, our appendix. Our brains, yikes, I don't think so.
i don't know, maybe we should ask the false blue whale, it has one of the biggest brains on record.
or we could ask the shrew, it has one of the largest brain/body masses.
I don't really have a good answer for those organisms. I think it has something to do with the brain structure. Perhaps they live in a less demanding environment. Perhaps, it's not quite so important for whales to have compact brains, simply becaue their bodies are so massive. The environments in which they compete are so massively different. Perhaps a level of superfluity, which may not seem sizable to them, but seems quite large to us, simply because of their massive size is allowed.
However, you're comparing different animals which derives their genes in VERY different competetive environments in an attempt to prove that brain size does not matter, which is VERY bad logic. These animals developed different brains. What you should be doing is measuring brain size and intelligence among animals that have the same brains--like what I've been doing with humans. I chose humans because we have a simple, accurate and available means testing intelligence. Indeed, everything I've found on the subject has confirmed my initial assertion--brain size correlates powerfully with intelligence. Nobody has cited ANYTHING that shows the opposite. I've looked on the Internet and could not find anything, except that which bolsters and supports my point.
uh, nobody is. you stated in your first post what is the importance of brain size to intelligence, does brain size really matter.
to answer your question yet again, no, brain size does not matter in determining an individuals intelligence.
there is no way, none, that will allow you to measure a brain and determine its intelligence based on its size
You are still not understanding me. This is why I got upset with you before. You do not seem to learn or understand. I'm not saying you can use brain size to measure intelligence. I've never once said that. I've read in some of the studies I've found that brain size can, at best, serve as a crude indicator of a person's intelligence. Sorry, I called you stupid before. But honestly, how many times do I have to tell you?
Smarter people generally have larger brains. There. That's the last time I'm going to say it. Do you see how that statement isn't the same statement you're trying to put in my mouth?--"that will allow you to measure a brain and determine its intelligence based on its size"... Guy. I never said that--not once. Jesus Christ. Please, man. Read before you type. I'm begging you.