> I agree that's absurd.  If they needed the fire for warmth, they'd have
> just sat around the fire. There would have been no reason to throw their
> food in it.

Why would that be absurd? Humans get bored. Humans are naturally curious, and like to experiment. I find it absurd to think a "caveman" would sit around a fire and naturally conclude that "fire good. cooking bad". If you lived to, say, the age of 60 (you've avoided getting gobbled up by a sabertooth or falling off a cliff while hunting) - that's roughly 21,960 nights sitting around the fire while your muching on whatever was on hand. Convince me you would not wonder what that mammoth meat (after all, you're on your 10th day wating from the same kill) would taste like after sitting in the flames for a few minutes.

Naw, I just can't buy all of these absolutist positions. I would seem there is some truth in all these theories.