jean-claude (to Karen):
>You might be going
>into the paleo idea as you went into the frutarian one. with an
>overenthousiastic atitude.

Yeah, I can see that in her as well.

But can you see how you will view any anthropological evidence through
your
mindset of raw. You will even conjecture that primitives would stand
around
the campfire and NOT cook their meat. Maybe they didn't--but maybe
they did.

In any case, there is some evidence that cooking fires have been
around a
long time, long enough for some adaptation to take place. No known
hunter-gatherer tribes were all raw (though the Inuits came close I
guess),
and there is no evidence to show that any culture would return to an
all-raw diet after mastery of fire. Perhaps--and this is just a
_perhaps_
so you don't have to get all defensive and consider me
judgemental--early
humans who adopted cooking didn't do so because it was some horrible
addiction, but because it improved their lot in life. That they would
extend their dietary through cooking as any animal who could master
fire
would--if they had a big enough brain and the opportunity. Perhaps. I
can
imagine that cooking was the end of an era in our heritage, but not
necessarily a step back. Pros and cons. Each way. Must be more pros
than
cons to cooking since humans have adopted it universally--excepting
neo-traditional moderns like yourselves who fight the never-ending
battle
to convince anyone who will listen that you eat right.

Perhaps you are a bit overenthusiastic yourself? It is easier to see
it in
other people than in yourself, no?

Cheers,
Kirt

Secola  /\  Nieft
[log in to unmask]