On Fri, 15 May 2009 16:20:37 -0500, Day, Wally <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> 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 would be more inclined to think that cooking was discovered by  
accident.  Someone left a piece of meat laying on a rock too close to the  
fire or something.  Or maybe they tried to burn a leftover piece of meat  
and came back the next morning after the fire was out and took a bite out  
of curiosity.  I can't really picture someone intentionally tossing a  
perfectly good piece of meat into the fire, then fishing it back out and  
eating it.

> 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.

Maybe.  I'm curious too, but when I drop food into a fire, I either  
retrieve it *immediately* (ie, no cooking), or I abandon it to the flames.  
Flames tend to destroy whatever is put in them, so I don't think I'd be  
putting food in there unless I was already done with it.

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

Probably.  :-)

-- 
   Robert Kesterson
   [log in to unmask]