- The two statements above are not very different. And I'm not sure how
>you might claim that "I never read anywhere on the instincto litterature
>the claim that cooking started 10000 years ago" if you had read the above.
>"Started" vs "became widespread" or "regular use" is a difference, I agree,
>but the point is that "Maximize Immunity"--instincto literature--feels that
>cooking was unimportant until 10,000 ya.

what i got as impression when i first read it ,was that it was not so
indispensable than when we started to eat grain. there it becames a
sytematic practice .  But i remember now that i got uneasy with this
statement and it didn't feel right.
Anyway i asked Bruno what he meant ,hope he will answer.

 . Why would hunter/gatherers in
>prehistory NOT cook foods?



>
>>>Bryant Dr., Prevention Magazine, September 1979 [Quite a source!!!]
>>
>>did you read this article what period is it in our evolution?
>
>No I haven't read the article. I don't understand the rest of your
>question

I was curious about the datations of the coproliths founds and studied.

 >It would fantastic if he did. But even saying "the systemic use of
cooking"
>does not predate 10,000 ya is unsupported, IMO.

as well than saying that prehistoric humans were cooking their foods.
We just don't know, Lot of scientists presumed it , because cooking is so
"natural "to them
>
>In my copy, the original "Introduction" written by Comby is dated 1989. The
>"Introduction to the New Edition" is dated 1994 and says basically that
>everything he wrote has been further substantiated since the original.

so apparantly there was a first french edition then an english one then the
canadian french one.

>What if the other points of view _are_ wrong? Might not one discriminate?

Is it so difficult for you to let go of the idea that a point of view can or
must be wrong?
A point of view is a point of view, Having differents points of views while
observing the same landscape doesnt  makes any of them wrong .somes might
have an overall  view while an other will get an accute perception  on one
aspect but that is all .

>;) The site acts in part as information which debunks false information.
>Perhaps you have information which is contrary and debunks the debunking?

No i am turned off by this game . I believe that what doesn't stand on its
own will collapse of its own.
Informations are there to travel if they got received they are
in--formatives if they don't , they don't take forms. Who decide wich forms
is the forms to take? Informations doesn't have this power.

>If so, you don't share it. Calling it biased and implying that the 10,000
>ya date for cooking was fabricated for some untoward purpose don't really
>bring anything forward, does it? Or were you just try to make the other
>point of view wrong? ;)

The other point of view ( that cooking occured for a long time ) is as
valuable to me than the idea that it is more recent . Cooking became useless
at least ,  in my experience , so i am wondering why would it have been
usefull to prehistoric humans ? I can understand the reasons once you switch
to a diet of hard small seeds, but to cook meats?  I understand very well
how we can get hooked by it but i question the" benefits " brought by it.
jean-claude
>
>Cheers,
>Kirt
>
>Secola  /\  Nieft
>[log in to unmask]