On Wed, 3 Jun 2009 18:18:32 -0400, william <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>Day, Wally wrote:
>> Subject: Re: Early cooking
>>
>>> Can any dog owners confirm that dogs prefer cooked meat to raw?
>>
...

>Irrelevant, isn't it? 

If there is no taste preference by raw-meat eating dogs for cooked meat, and
if we are to believe those at the RawPaleo forums who claim that they do not
prefer the taste of cooked meat to raw, then that undermines the taste
hypothesis for the development of cooking of meats. Why is that relevant?
Well, that is one of the main reasons that many of the proponents of
radically ancient cooking (more than 700,000 years ago) give. I know you
don't like the very ancient cooking hypothesis, William, so it would seem to
be relevant to you for that reason.

>How many people are willing to eat raw, for
>instance. ...

I am willing to eat mostly raw--if it turns out that does me good and
doesn't do me harm--and that's all the relevance I need, and I thought you
were eating significant amounts of raw foods also. As for other people, they
can do whatever they please.