On Thu, 19 Jun 2003 09:45:00 -0700, ginny wilken <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

>At 12:27 6/19/03, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>On Thu, 19 Jun 2003 09:09:52 -0700, ginny wilken <[log in to unmask]>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>And even if cooking started early on, could it not have been
our "original
>>>sin"? Nothing says we waited until agriculture to start making mistakes.
>>>But we undoubtedly evolved originally on raw foods. Do we need to go
back
>>>further than Paleo times to see what is truly prototypical?
>>
>>For our species, I don't think so.
>>Hence the PaleoDiet (cooked). Not the PrePaleoDiet (raw).
>
>Philip; why don't you think so?
>Did we not evolve, or were we not designed
>to function, on raw?

No, I don't think so.

(Also "evolved" and "designed" are oxymoronic :-)

>Do you think we changed to make cooked more correct
>for us? Were we just waiting around to evolve as a species until the
advent
>of cooking? I don't understand what you're saying. Where does prototypical
>start?

Evolution is not purposeful.

We did what we did. Paleo humans hunted and cooked. That is a fact.
Hence if one is looking for a prototypical paleo diet, it is
hunting of animals, gathering of plants, and cooking.


Hence the raw vs. cooked debate has nothing to do with paleo.
It is a different diet argument.