Sheryl:

> So far the current best estimate when a physiologically modern human first
> walked the earth is about 2 million years ago.

And is the human brain part of human pysiology? You are welcome to the
prehuman brain of 2 million years ago...

> The earliest evidence of use of fire by humans is (at this time)
> about 1.5 million years ago.  That doesn't mean that they didn't use it
> earlier.  It means that they were using it AT LEAST 1.5 million years ago.

And humans were relatively far-flung over geography so finding evidence of
fire does not mean that _all_ humans used fire at this time, does it? If you
want to cook, cook. I do, often. But what is your point??????

> Think about what the theory of paleolithic nutrition says... The
> idea is not to eat what we ate BEFORE we evolved into physiologically modern
> humans.  If you look at it that way, then maybe we should try to match the
> diet of amoebas.

Three questions:

1] Where does anyone (anyone except the raw vegan crowd) say that we should
not eat what we ate well BEFORE we evolved into humans? (you mentioned
amoebas)

2] Are you absolutely positively sure that "humans" were fully modern 2
million years ago? Perhaps you could provide a reference or five, especially
as regards speech and brain size, as well as art and technology?

3] What do amoebas have to do with the argument?

> We are
> better adapted to the diet eaten by our species for the last million years
> than the last 10,000 years.

I think this is Wally's point. What is yours?

> Even assuming that the first physiologically modern humans didn't use fire
> for 500,000 years (and that's an assumption--the timing estimates are so
> close that they are well within a margin of error for being the same), it
> still makes no sense to say that we are healthiest eating what we ate for a
> 500,000 year span rather than what we ate for the 1.5 million years following
> that period.  If humans have used fire for 1.5 million years, then we are
> very well adapted to cooked food.

There are feces examinations that show that some humans didn't fire their
food as late as 10,000 years ago. FWIW.

Again, what is your point? That Wally should eat raw foods or that he should
eat cooked grains?

> I disagree.  It's extremely relevant.  Eating raw meat--perhaps still warm
> from a kill--is not very appealing anyone I know, and I don't think it's just
> cultural habit.

Perhaps because you haven't eaten raw animal foods ever? This is, indeed,
cultural. Whether that means that humans didn't evolve eating raw animal
foods is a different kettle of (raw) fish. Raw animal foods are quite
delicious, even ecstatic, tasting at times to a majority of people who have
overcome their learned (cultural?) revulsion to such foods. Our (fyo in
January) daughter has had her choice of raw or cooked animal foods since
birth. Sometimes she prefers raw bone marrow, beef, lamb, seafood, and
sometimes she wants it cooked. I'll mention to her that she should not be
eating these foods because it is more than a cultural habit.

> Cooked meat tastes better to most of us (I assume there are
> exceptions, though I haven't met these people).

I have met people that prefer Silk (some soy concoction), does that mean it
is relevent? Ice cream tastes lovely to most people too. Salted and buttered
popcorn? Donuts? What is your point????

> I'd hypothesize that this is
> body wisdom, and arises from our 1.5 million year history of eating cooked
> food.

If you were raised with the sensory choice of raw or cooked animal foods
since birth you might have a point.  Some kids are not offered the choice of
raw or cooked animal foods (just raw) and they seem to do just fine overall.
Imagine that.

> I'd guess that our bodies are better adapted to eat certain foods
> cooked--for example, red meat.

Perhaps so. Perhaps not. Perhaps both. It is a debateable issue. But, once
again, what is your point??? That Wally should eat raw animal foods or
cooked grains?

Cheers,
Kirt

PS Deleting your =20 etc is very annoying