This sounds like "true believer" theory and logic. Just because you have been
told that all raw is better doesn't make it always so.  Most studies I have
seen (and personal observation) indicate all raw is not better over the long
haul.

 There is no way that anyone back then would be able to make that long term
nutrition link.  They knew nothing of nutrition.  There might be carcinogens
in cooked meat, however, eating some carcinogens will not necessarily cause
cancer.  The current wave of cancer has little to do with meat and much to do
with all the grains and refined garbage and frankenfats that are eaten.

Cooking increases the food possibilities in harsh environments.
There is also a difference between cooking over a fire and deep-frying. There
is a difference between light cooking (rare) and well done (burned).

 They were probably in survival mode.  Survival mode would dictate cooking
meat.  The pathogens in raw meat would likely kill our ancestors much quicker
than any possible loss of nutrients in cooked food.

-David

> Intelligence of dominators, maybe. Advantage to those who rule.
> What better way to ensure dominance than to persuade others to stun their
> offspring by feeding them insufficient
> nutrients?
> It has been claimed that there are three races of man. Differences not
> physical.
>

>What a crock of ...
>Meat does not need to be cut much to be digested well.
>Destroying nutrients such as enzymes, vitamins etc., also creating
>carcinogens, is not proof of intelligence.
>