Phillip >  "Cooking was a food technology utilized from 200,000 years ago,
and may have played a critical role in human adaptations, so I would not
say "edible raw" is required."

These kinds of discussions are interesting to me.  Testing boundaries is a
natural and good thing;  I do it all the time with my diet just to verify
that, for instance, beans are not a natural part of the human diet.  The
testing always brings me back to the core idea that, if you couldn't eat it
raw, you shouldn't eat it cooked.  All other foods, to greater or lesser
degrees, just make me feel sick.  That's a personal observation and perhaps
it's not fair to generalize to the greater population.

Having said that, I believe it's true that some folks may feel that they
just HAVE to have a certain food and want to think that it's paleo.  Most
have been well trained to believe that certain foods are good for you.  But
the concept that we've had time to adapt to foods that only become edible
by the cooking process is, to my mind, wishful thinking.  If true, the idea
that we've adapted to fire-made-edible foodstuffs would open up a whole new
world of culinary delights.  The problem is, at least in my very
unscientific testing, my system wants nothing to do with any of these
foods.  I have tried.

There may be exceptions to the general rule of edible raw.  But they are
exceptions not by virtue of the fact that we've had enough time to adapt to
the use of fire to make them edible, but because there's something to the
foodstuff that cooking process makes less bad.  Personally, I'm not
interested in "less bad", so I'll stick to the rule of edible raw.

Jim Swayze