Here's a standard debunking of Wrangham's ideas:-

 

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

 

I've noticed that after he was so excoriated by numerous palaeoanthropologists for the rather unlikely tuber theory, he's since changed his tune and suggested that all cooked food, not merely cooked tubers, leads to greater brain-size.

 

Well, I've been asked by a PR agent/literary agent of Wrangham's to review the book at some stage on the above website in a further article, which I will happily do - that is, as long as it doesn't  just recycle all the old material that Wrangham has already claimed before re truly absurd claims that raw-meat-eaters need to chew their raw meats for 5 to 6 hours in order to get enough calories a day! etc. I suppose the theory is that bad publicity is just as good as good publicity. I don't mind as I rather like the fact that such a kook like Wrangham is at the forefront of pro-cooking theories as it makes us rawists look good, by contrast.

 

Geoff






 
> Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 19:06:24 -0400
> From: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: "Catching Fire: How Cooking Made Us Human" by Richard Wrangham
> To: [log in to unmask]
> 
> On Mon, 11 May 2009 15:45, Wiley Long wrote:
> 
> >Wrangham's theories that tubers provided the energy needed for the growth of
> >the human brain are unconvincing to almost all mainstream anthropologists.
> >Few buy into his idea that fire was controlled 2.5 million years ago as the
> >encephalization process began. A key factor needed for the encephalization
> >that occurred to create the human brain is DHA - certainly not provided by
> >potatoes.
> >
> >Wiley Long
> >
> On Tue, 12 May 2009 08:53 Jim Swayze wrote:
> 
> >> I was hoping we might contain our excoriation of
> >> a book's content and arguments until we have read it.
> >>
> >> Keith
> >
> >A fair response to William's comments. What do you say about Wiley's?
> >
> >Jim Swayze
> >www.fireholecanyon.com
> 
> Well, since you asked, I won't know till I have read 
> Wrangham's book. Wiley refers to DHA being "a key factor" 
> in the process of Homo sapiens encephalization. Let's see 
> what Wrangham says about all of what he identifies as the 
> "key factors". Wiley is bound to be right in that there are 
> a number of factors. Which ones has Wrangham listed?
> How does he rank their relative importance at the various 
> evolutionary stages?
> 
> I'm not supporting Wrangham, but I do get disappointed by 
> people who argue solely on the basis of their prejudices 
> (that is, judging a book's arguments and evidence prior to 
> reading the book). I'd prefer that people on a discussion list 
> (it's not a "preaching list") hold out the possibility that they can
> refine and improve their OWN position through discussion, 
> research and then reflection rather than merely persuading 
> OTHERS by the intransigence of their own position and contempt
> for other approaches. 
> 
> I notice praise for the book by Edward Wilson and Matt Ridley.
> These two know more about human evolution than I will ever
> know - or could even understand. With their praise, I'm prepared 
> to read "Catching Fire" with an open mind.
> 
> All of the above is a general observation and should not be
> read or taken as a criticism of any individual - it's not
> intended to be. And I can assure the two people who might
> feel they are being criticized that I have great respect for 
> them and often value their contributions here.
> 
> Keith

_________________________________________________________________
Beyond Hotmail — see what else you can do with Windows Live.
http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/134665375/direct/01/