Francois,

> F : Right or wrong? The theory is a theory and nothing more. Only
> experiments can show whether it is right or wrong and that's why I started
> to eat according to Burger's theory,

Hmmm. You continue to avoid the real issue: Instincto vs a mixed cooked/raw
paleodiet.

> K : We have a lot of common ground if you are admitting that Burger is too
>> optimistic.
>
> F : Yes, but we disagree on the extend of this excess of optimism, don't we?

Not so sure, as I don't know the level of your optimism. I think, as I have
said many times, that there is something very valuable to instincto theory.
It just gets caught up in all too much optimism and the
otherwise-there-is-no-hope stuff.

>>> F : (...)leading to very slow adaptation.
>>
> K : Maybe, maybe not. It is an entirely open question methinks.
>
> F : Yes, all questions are open. Just check the rate of genome changes per
> millions of years.

OK. I checked. They are averages. Nothing that speaks to such a radical
change as cooking wild foodstuffs. Or a tripling of brain size in such a
short time.

> K : Hope is the ultimate pain killer, no? ;)
>
> F : It is, but it also what makes us move ahead and try to find solutions to
> our problems.

Naaaawww. There is simple curiousity for starters. An "unfortunate" offshoot
of the dreaded big brain, I suspect.

>> F : A lot of cheese and macaronis ! But no refined sugar, no junk food
> nor
>>> coffee since 1964.
>
> K : Yeah, of course, instincto is better than that. To decide if it is
> better
>> than a mixed raw/cooked paleodiet, one would have to experiment further,
> no?
>
> F : Yes. But I don't like boiled patatoes.

Again, you avoid the issue.

> K : Burger needs agressing. Indeed, the instinctos like yourself and your
>> friends are doing honesty and integrity a great disservice in your hands
> off
>> attitude about criticizing him. It makes you all look like you sympathize
>> with him and his behaviors.
>
> F : See Jean-Claude answer.I don't care about his behavior to the same
> extend I don't care about the behavior of Copernic, Edison, Einstein or
> Rudolph Diesel, even if my car is a Diesel and I use electricity for my PC
> to answer you.

Yes, I will see jean-claude (does he mind that you use caps?). The issue of
Burger is not so easily averted. You give him some sort of elevated status
for inventing a theory. Newton believed in fairies, but nevertheless, he has
been shown to be lacking in the larger picture.

> K : It casts doubt on the supposition that we are best off with an instincto
>> diet. It doesn't prove anything.
>
> F : Yes, you and I as well doubt. Doubt was the main reason for me to beginn
> the experiment, as it might have been yours.

Now, we're talking. Doubt is the basis of science (whereas faith is the
basis of religion). Have you _doubt_ of Burger's theory, or _faith_? No
flippant answers now, this is somewhat serious stuff.

<snip your belief that disease is likely the result of human ignorance--we
can agree to disagree>

> K : (...)There must be an overall positive trade-off
>> toward cooking or it wouldn't be so prevelant.
>
> F : You're right. Cooking allows us to live in aerias where our original
> food doesn't grow, allowing us to feed on foods not edible raw. So, our
> modern world was born and it wouldn't have grown in the same way
> without cooking. A very interesting subject!

Yet, all "modern" hunter-gatherers, even those in the tropics, cook much of
their foods (especially veggies and animal foods). Such strange goings on.

> I remember that an instincto nammed Jacques Castagnet died of malaria in
> Africa
> in the 80s. He didn't follow Burger's advice and  fasted untill he
> died, so he sacrificed himself just to show that even when fasting one may
> die of paludism.

I am not familiar with "paludism" but it sounds like a very useful word.
Enlighten me? Please don't consider that I am making fun of your English
abilities (I am nothing but embarrassed that I can't understand most
European languages). Rather I think, by context, I would LOVE to know what
english (or other) word you speak of...

>>> F : You're right, but most disagree with the concepts of the
>>> "metasexuality".
>>
> K : Good on them!
>
> F : They may be right. In this case all questions and inquiring about it are
> irrelevant and everything goes well in the best of the worlds.

How are they irrelevant? And what do you mean by "everything goes well in
the best of the worlds"?

> K : But still you defend Burger.
>
> F : My car is powered by a Diesel engine, not by Rudolph Diesel himself.
> Nevertheless I'm gratefull to him.

And if Rudy was a pedophile (howeverthefuckitsspelled) asshole, would you
say it doesn't matter about Rudy because he invented a diesel engine
(nevermind that many consider the internal combustion engine the most
horrifying polluting device that could have possibly been invented)?

OK, that was unfair. ;) But my point still stands. I am an individual; you
are an individual. Are we only speaking to some sort of abstract
idea-bullshit? Are the folks watching dealing with only the abstract? Is my,
or your, personality only abstract? Why do you want to separate such things?
Is that part of modern thought? Is that part of avoiding the evolution of
human cerebration? Am I grateful to you? Are you grateful to me? Or are you
only toying with me, you rascalrama you?

I'm sooooo sorry, I got off track, lets get back to the ideals!

> F : I'm not here to judge anyone. I'm not interested in the private and
> intimate live of others. I like to learn and argue about theories, not about
> persons. (IMO ??)

Then you live in your head.  People matter, and one's reaction to people
matters. If there is anything that paleo-anthropology teaches us it is that
"the lives of our ancestors must've been one big encounter group". You deny
such for reasons of your own, methinks.

IMO=In My Opinion

> F : Searching through the archives of this list takes a lot of time. But you
> provided us with the case of the son of Jean-Claude, with no enamel on some
> blackened first teeth. Jean-Claude wrote the story on the French instincto
> list and I asked him why he doesn't tell it straight on this list. Seems
> there's a problem between you and him preventing to do so.(? !)

It seems. He doesn't like that I won't bow to his ideals about the event.
Also his wife gets pretty pissed off as well. As I said, it's not a subject
that gets talked about. Better to be polite and ignorant. ;)

> He says the mother was not eating instincto at the birth, nor was she when
> breast feeding.

And she has stated that she feels it happened because she ate raw meat!!!

> She had eaten kinda vegan-instincto for only 8 months, but
> stopped 2 months before giving birth. There are good reasons to think that
> eating vegan-instincto is not suitable.

We are in agreement that raw-vegan is not suitable. Not suitable for what is
an open debate. ;)

> So, that case has nothing to do with
> instincto as defined by GCB, if it could have some little ties with a
> vegan-instinctive nutrition.

Perhaps. But it has not been mentioned in any raw-vegan birth anecdotal
stuff. Lots of low-birth-weight, failure-to-thrive, learning-disabled-stuff,
but no black teeth that I have ever heard of. Of course, I haven't heard of
everything by a very long shot, but it is worth mentioning.

> So, we'll have to investigate another case you will no doubt provide us. I
> hope I won't have to come to Hawaii for that purpose, but rather for
> windsurfing.

If you think this case is dismissed, you have been doing too much
windsurfing. ;) Truth be told, it bothers me that that all you need to do to
dismiss an idea is to say that the mother wasn't "pure" instincto. It may be
that the offspring may have been even worse of if the mother hadn't made
whatever "exceptions" she felt needed before birth. Who knows, but from a
"scientific" point of view one has to consider all the possibilities, no?

> K : Why don't the mongooses die from trich?
>
> F : Do we know that not a single mongoose died from trich?

Not the one that Ano ate. ;)

Perhaps the most instincto of all mongeese died from trich--no, wait,
correct that, _almost_  died from trich because he got modern medical
treatment at the last moment. ;)

> F : (...)  But they d'be all right in a unpolluted environnement, for sure.
>
> K : How can you be so sure? Because the theory says so? I thought it was all
> one big experiment. But you can't dismiss information if it runs counter to
> the predictions of the theory. That's just cheating.
>
> F : "Sure" just slipped out of my fingers. In fact I'm sure of very few
> things... "Probably" would have been the proper word.

I hear you. I do that all the time, too. It shows what I really think, and
then I go back and temper the verbiage with "probably's" and "perhaps's" so
I don't turn folks off.  ;)

>>> F : You ignore the examples of ever bigger hospital and  ever increasing
>>> number of very sick and suffering cooked food eaters of every age.
>
> K : I don[t ignore them at all. They just don't "prove" instincto theory. I
> am
>> comparing an entirely raw paleo diet with a mixed/raw paleodiet. Comparing
>> either to modern eaters is almost pointless.
>
> F : Yes, why not such an experiment?

Who to do the experiment with except longterm instinctos? I am game from the
lost cause side. I know single cases don't count, but for me, personally,
its all that counts. How about you? ;)

> K : Anyway, you are proving to be quite a reasonable fellow in many ways.
> Don't
>> know what else to say. Maybe I should go back to instincto and you can
> start
>> some cooking and then we'll have further notes to compare, eh? ;)
>
> F : Thank you! Good idea...but no boiled patatoes, please.
> And thanks also for this interesting talk.

Quit hedging and it will be more interesting. I am borderline between
instincto and paleo, but you keep spouting instincto lore (albeit moderated
by politically-correct talk) and somewhat idiotic/dismissive talk about
boiled potatoes. Drop the shroud and speak plainly, eh?

Cheers,
Kirt