I was reading  recently in a french pamphlet nearly as old as my grand
mother , titled "Should we eat raw?"    that chicken  fed freely (ad
libitum) on raw meat, instead of earthworms, die fast (I don't have the
full article so I cannot tell you more for the moment) due to internal
poisoning of organs.
Would it be that the incomparable instinct of  chickens be baffled by raw
meat  ?

You might as well answer that this result should have been expected given
the fact that in the course of evolution, hens have rarely eaten raw red
meat. But this was  also the case of pre-fire, pre-weapon  human beings,
wasn't it ?.   The question of whether we are "entitled" to eat much more
raw red meat than chimpanzees (ie very little) is of course hard to
establish, and in any case,   I wouldn't rely on paleostudies to find out
the truth for me.

However we do have here  an argument to say  that the commonly heard
predicate { " we are  omnivorous so we should not  pay attention to the
kind of RAF we have on the table,  provided it is original and we are using
our instinct to select it  "  } is more theoretical than real.  I wouldn't
be surprised if  it would appear, one day,  that the  universally accepted
concepts of  "animal food ", "omnivorous animal "  left something to be
desired, as far as human nutrition is concerned.   Can one make modern
science with ambiguous and antiquated concepts such as "meat" and
"omnivorous" ?  This question is much less innocent than you might thought
of  in first instance, and is certainly one which has been hotly  debated
in linguistic and philosophical circles ever since Plato.

Arrgh, where are  the damn  earthworms  which I brought for lunch this
morning  ?

Bye to everybody. See you in a few months time ...

Cheerio,
Denis