Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Fri, 15 May 2009 16:33:26 -0500 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
On Fri, 15 May 2009 16:20:37 -0500, Day, Wally <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> I agree that's absurd. If they needed the fire for warmth, they'd have
>> just sat around the fire. There would have been no reason to throw their
>> food in it.
>
> Why would that be absurd? Humans get bored. Humans are naturally
> curious, and like to experiment.
I would be more inclined to think that cooking was discovered by
accident. Someone left a piece of meat laying on a rock too close to the
fire or something. Or maybe they tried to burn a leftover piece of meat
and came back the next morning after the fire was out and took a bite out
of curiosity. I can't really picture someone intentionally tossing a
perfectly good piece of meat into the fire, then fishing it back out and
eating it.
> Convince me you would not wonder what that mammoth meat (after all,
> you're on your 10th day wating from the same kill) would taste like
> after sitting in the flames for a few minutes.
Maybe. I'm curious too, but when I drop food into a fire, I either
retrieve it *immediately* (ie, no cooking), or I abandon it to the flames.
Flames tend to destroy whatever is put in them, so I don't think I'd be
putting food in there unless I was already done with it.
> Naw, I just can't buy all of these absolutist positions. I would seem
> there is some truth in all these theories.
Probably. :-)
--
Robert Kesterson
[log in to unmask]
|
|
|