On Sat, 24 Nov 2001 01:15:29 -0500, Wally Ballou <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

>Yes, raw... got a problem with that?

To the opposite. It's more natural.

>> Fire would help to eat meat and even more tubers and grass seeds.
>> Have much more engergy when cooked, and less toxins.
>> Fire has archeologic evidence after 400,000BC (stone herds).
>
>Amadeus...   WHAT - PART - OF - ***NO***  ***FIRE***  DO - YOU - NOT -
>UNDERSTAND ???

What do you meat with that shouting?
Are you disputing about the introduction time of fire with humans?

We are talking about a indroduction time from between 250kya and 1900kya.
That means some time between uprise of neanderthal (250kya) and homo erectus
(1.9mya).

The very old hearth sites are disputed, but
"...more recent data from reddened areas at Chesowanja (..) and Koobi Fora
(from around 1.6 million years ago) represent repeatedly used hearths (..).
At Swartkans, burned bones are associated with hominid artefacts at around
this time as well (..). This suggests that the control of fire arose with
homo erectus."
(from Current Anthropology Vol 40 5.Dec 1999 page 572).

You may notice that cooking of plant food is what would make *possible* an
increased meat consumption in homo erectus over the small cimp-like
consumption before 1.9MY ago first hand.

Cooking doubles the energy availability from starch food and this is what
*necessary* to rise the meat intake above a smaller percentage, due to the
physiological limits of protein toxicity (also known as rabbit starvation).

So if you argue against cooking you argue against meat consumption rates
above some 30g per day and individuum.

>You can quibble about dates and archeology all you like, but the
>INDISPUTABLE fact is that the human animal evolved to very nearly its
>present state BEFORE the it developed the technology to harness fire.

Well, exactely this is disputed and I tend to adopt the view of the
promoters of an early fire usage impact on human evolution.
The first human-like (not-climbing) homo *were* homo erectus, from 1.9mya

>> Naked with this stick, sharp or not.....
>> you could hunt tubers or gazelles. :-)
>
>One thing is for sure... YOU would not have had much of a chance to
>survive...  Your either lack all vestige of common sense, or are
>gleefully twisting reality to try to make an argument.  Gazelles?  maybe,
>but how about rats, mice, sheep, beavers, lizards, insects, worms,
>snails, birds, and thousands of other smaller, slower, and very tasty
>animals?

Shurely our evolution was with eating of all creatures, moveing or not.
So was mine.

Now I prefer to leave the "rats, mice, sheep, beavers, lizards, insects,
worms, snails, birds", all very tasty, to the others.
You can enjoy.

I prefer not to make predictions of this or the other on my or others'
survival. I leave that to you.

regards, Amadeus