Wes asked
 > 1. According to several sources (that I've read), human
 > mother's milk contains just 5% of its calories as protein.
 > A human infant grows and develops rapidly aided by this
 > small amount of protein. As adults, would it be safe to
 > assume that we need no more than 5% of our daily calories
 > as protein, and possibly even less (since we're not
 > rapidly growing anymore)?

What I've read is that babies can get away with such a low amount
because a) they're getting perfectly tailored proteins, and b) they
have such porous guts that they absorb and can use nearly 100% of what
they ingest in the form of mother's milk.  Adults are in a very
different boat.  As you said, breast milk is a raw food; the cooked
proteins most adults eat can be damaged, so perhaps more is needed to
compensate.  Also, adults have a less porous gut than babies have.  So
maybe some folks do better with higher protein diets because they are
actually absorbing and benefiting from only a small percentage of what
they ingest.

 > 2. A baby's natural diet (mother's milk) is raw. Would
 > it be safe to assume that if a baby doesn't need to eat
 > cooked food in order to thrive, then neither should we,
 > as adults?

Although I am in favor of raw foodism myself, I don't think that this
argument is very sound.  The baby/milk relationship is so special, so
tailor-made, that to compare it to any adult/food relationship is
unwise, in my opinion.  Similar reasoning might lead one to think that
mother's milk is the perfect food for adults, but that is not the
case.