Some comments on the debate sparked by the new theory on age of
cooking...

Rejecting the arguement on cooked carbs and body size doesn't require
rejecting the idea that, due to the apparent ancientness of cooking, SOME
foods which require cooking can reasonably be included in a diet worthy
of being considered Paleo.  That question is the more pertinant one, to
this list, in my view.

>1)   Cooking is a highly sophisticated behavior that requires intelligence
>not had by any other primate.   No non-human primate cooks.

In relation to the logic of Paleo eating,  this is irrelevant because it
constitutes moving the finish line.  If you want to argue that a food
needs to have been in our diet in unmodified form since we diverged
evalutionarily from other primates to be good enough for us, that's OK,
but it isn't, by definition, Paleo.

All along, the aspect of the purely opportunistic "sharp stick" approach
that has always been the hardest for me to accept is the assumed low
intelligence that goes with it.  I just don't accept that stone age folk
were so drasticly dumber than we are.  Their culture may have differed
from ours in many ways that we would consider more "primative".

As to the argument that cooked carbs led to an increase in body size in
humans or pre-humans, I think it is a "chicken vs egg" mistake.  There is
a much simpler explanation that is more in accord with the observed
dynamics of such things.  Like the giantism of island animals,  animals
can evolve to larger size when their population lacks serious challenge
by  predators.   More calories don't necessarily lead to evoloution
toward greater body size.  They do pretty reliably lead to higher
reproductive rates.  Bigger human populations probably led to, but at
least coincided with,  greater success against predators.  I imagine that
was what opened the door for this change.