The trouble with claiming anything from the Palaeolithic is that evidence from 
that era is extremely sparse and also ambiguous. That's why anthropologists 
still, as a vast majority, stick to the 250,000 figure for the invention of cooking
(perhaps 400,000 for the invention of fire) because of the solid evidence of 
hearths etc. at c. 250,000 years ago.

Yes, I've heard of vague unsupported claims re cooking being invented 
c.500,000 or 750,00 years ago. But there are very, very few sites that far 
back with such claims(compare that with numerous  archaeological sites 
demonstrating cooking c.100,000 years ago)
and every single one of those earlier sites has been heavily criticised with 
scientists pointing out that natural causes would be a far more likely 
explanation( for example, wildfires caused by lightning strikes are pretty 
common in East Africa, and also, many charred bones could have been moved 
by  wild animals


This article points out the many huge flaws in the  false assumptions made 
about some of the much earlier sites:-

http://old.rawpaleodiet.com/non-wrangham-theories-of-cooking-debunked/

Excerpts from the above link commenting on the various sites:-

"Such evidence leads to the belief that the burnt bones found at the site are 
probably the result of a natural fire (Wuethrich)."

"
The association of fire with faunal remains, stone-tools and hominid fossils is 
far from conclusive and is most likely the result of noncultural postdepositional 
processes (Binford and Ho 1985, Binford and Stone 1986)."


By the way, the argument re dates being constantly pushed back is not true. 
The absurd claims re Zhoukoudian Caves(re fire/cooking supposedly being 
invented c.500,000 years ago) was actually first made c.1930, after that the 
250,000-year-theory figure came up trumps, once more evidence came in.

And all the more ludcrous notions re fire being supposedly  invented c.1.8/19 
million years ago etc. have already been debunked by many 
palaeoanthropologists with this link pointing out the many flaws that those 
researchers exposed:-

http://old.rawpaleodiet.com/advent-of-cooking-article/

It is also incorrect to assume that, just because fire was invented that 
humans immediately started cooking. Apart from anything else, many hunter-
gatherer tribes routinely eat some of their animal food raw, yet this is long 
after cooking was invented. For example,the Nenets of Siberia still eat most of 
their animal food raw - now, they live in the Arctic, so one would have 
thought that would be an ecxellent reason for them to  take up cooking 
absolutely all their food for warmth(well, except for the berries in summer), 
but they don't feel the need.

At any rate, anthropologists tend to give a c.100,000 to 150,000 figure for 
the time difference between the invention of fire for warmth/fending off 
predators and the invention of fire for cooking.

To my mind, though, the actual dates of cooking are irrelevant. For a diet to 
be "natural", it must be beneficial to humans. Yet, 1000s of studies have 
shown direct links between the amounts of hat-created toxins in foods eaten 
by humans and a higher incidence of cancer/diabetes and numerous age-
related illnesses. Since, clearly, cooked foods do harm humans(with greater 
harm done as the cooking temperature increases), it is quite safe to state 
that humans are not fully adapted to cooked foods, and that cooked foods are 
not natural.

Besides, geneticists have claimed that it takes c.1 million years for wild 
animals to adapt to quite different(raw) foods(our hominid ancestors also took 
millions of years to change from fruit to meat etc.) Since cooked foods are so 
radically different from raw foods, it's quite likely that it's impossible to fully 
adapt to them, ever.

Geoff


On Thu, 14 May 2009 14:23:01 -0600, Day, Wally <[log in to unmask]> 
wrote:

>Very nicely put Phil - fair and balanced.
>
>I would also like to point out that as time goes by, everything seems to be 
getting pushed further and further back into antiquity. Especially the use of 
fire. First it was 50,000 years ago, Then over 100,000. Then 350,000. Then 
750,000. Now, (and I have read the supporting evidence), a million and a half.
>
>Which brings up the next question. What is the likelihood that humans, and 
especially "modern" humans (of the last 150,00 or so years), would not have 
at least tested the cooking of various foodstuffs? Sorry, raw-foodists, the 
argument that cooking is "unnatural" just doesn't hold water (and this 
statement is coming from someone who prefers most of my food raw or barely 
heated above room temperature).