Title: Re: Humans made fire 790,000 years ago...
Post by: TylerDurden on October 28, 2008, 09:25:31 pm
This should go in the Hot Topics section. I'll do that now.
Also, as the above link was already duplicated on the rawpaleodiet yahoo group, I think I should post my previous debunking of the above link, here, as well(more or less):-
First of all, length of time to adapt to a different diet would only apply to raw foods(eg:- switching from eating raw fruit to eating raw meat). Even in this case, dietary changes take a very long time to come about, judging from the Palaeolithic diet timeline:-
(some geneticists think at least 1 million years is needed). However, since cooked-foods are so radically different from raw foods and no other species has ever gone in for cooking its food, over the last few billion years, it is extremely questionable as to whether humans can ever fully adapt to a cooked-food diet. To become fully adapted to cooked-foods, humans would have to not only be able to tolerate the toxins created by cooking, such as advanced glycation endproducts, nitrosamines, heterocyclic amines and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs are also a byproduct of fuel-burning, incidentally, and labelled as a pollutant), but, arguably, one would also have to prove that those very toxins were needed by the human body(at least if one was trying to claim that cooked-food was "better" for humans than raw food), as the primary difference between raw and cooked is that cooked-food contains less nutrients(usually) per kg, and has toxins in it which raw food doesn't) - unfortunately, current scientific studies show, very clearly, that humans do suffer from those toxins:-
Re the 790,000-fire-claim made in the first post of this thread:- This is actually quite an old claim, not new at all, and I've debunked it, previously. I do wish the media wouldn't state such things as a certainty, as most archaeologists all agree on one thing, that it's impossible to pin down the exact date of the invention of fire (whether for warmth or cooking), due to inconclusive evidence.
Most archaeologists and palaeoanthropologists point out that the evidence for the invention of cooking is much stronger for c.250,000 to 300,000 years ago,
http://cogweb.ucla.edu/Abstracts/Pennisi_99.html
as there's plenty of evidence around for it, yet anthropologists, such as Wrangham, who make vague claims for earlier times, generally only have 1 or 2 sites that they can point to - it is extremely unlikely that cooking or fire for warmth would only be invented in 1 or 2 areas c.790,000 years ago or whatever, and not transmitted to other tribes, to any extent, until c.250,000 years ago, when hearths were produced en- masse.
The evidence from the 790,000-year-claim is also labelled "inconclusive" by a number of sources, with a mention of how the site has been partially destroyed etc, and there are a number of skeptics of this 790,000-year-claim.:-
Here's a quote from the web, showing how cooking was not in evidence at Yaakov re the 790,000-year-claim:-
" A 0.79 Myr old site in Israel [Gesher Benot Ya'aqov, Science 304 (2004) 725)] has more credible evidence, though there does not seem to have been any cooking or repeated fire creation. The earliest convincing evidence of fire use for cooking appears at the 0.3-0.55 Myr old late Homo erectus site at Zhoukoudian in China and the 0.4 Myr old presumed early archaic Homo sapiens site of Terra Amata near Nice. In both cases the evidence is primarily in the form of food refuse bones that were apparently charred during cooking. Unfortunately, there still is not sufficient evidence at either site to say conclusively that there was controlled fire in the sense of being able to create it at will. However, by 100 kya, there is abundant evidence of regular fire use at Neandertal sites. By that time, they evidently were able to create fires when they wished to, and they used them for multiple purposes." http://anthro.palomar.edu/homo2/mod_homo_3.htm
While the above paragraph gives credence to the Zhoukoudian Caves evidence, there are plenty of anthropologists who are highly sceptical of the Zhoukoudian evidence:-
http://www.jstor.org/pss/2743299
(Quoted from the above page):- "The association of fire with faunal remains, stone-tools and hominid fossils is far from conclusive and is most likely the result of noncultural postdepositional processed (Binford and Ho 1985, Binford and Stone 1986)".
Also re the weak evidence at zhoukoudian:- " The implication that h. sapiens was the first in the line of mankind to control fire was supported by evidence found at a site in Zhoukoudian, China. While it had been believed for some time that Zhoukoudian was the first site of controlled fire, evidence found through more exhaustive research indicates otherwise. There are no hearths at the site in China. Nor are there any food remnants. Such evidence leads to the belief that the burnt bones found at the site are probably the result of a natural fire (Wuethrich). The lack of strong evidence supporting the site as one in which man's control of fire is displayed supported the belief that h. erectus lacked technological prowess and culture." taken from:-
In short, any claims for much earlier dates for the invention of fire for warmth or for cooking are highly suspect, which is why the scientific community still sticks(roughly) to the 250,000-years-ago date for the invention of fire for cooking(as opposed to fire for warmth), as that's the only time when hearths can reliably be found all over the place.
Geoff
Title: Re: Humans made fire 790,000 years ago...
Post by: Satya on October 28, 2008, 09:27:13 pm
Well, the article did not mention cooking at all. Evidence for cooking I think only goes back some 250kya, correct? I would say that consumption of raw foods - especially raw animal foods - is very important to good health. Weston Price's work bore this out for modern humans. Perhaps we can tolerate some cooked foods too, as we have eaten some cooked foods for some time. But all cooked is just so wasteful on many fronts. I myself eat some cooked foods, but I make sure to eat much of it raw. And it may be that some people can handle more cooked food than others, but so many nutrients like vitamin B-6 are destroyed in cooked animal foods, that it makes sense to continue on with the raw foods. We could consider energy as well. Cooking costs more in terms of resources than the same foods consumed raw. Then there is the idea that it has no precedence in other animals (but then, neither does computer technology. :-) )
Furthermore, the evidence of burnt flint around the fire sites does not necessarily mean that these fires were initiated by the flints, although that is most probable. Pyrotechnology, like tools use in general, developed as a long, slow process in our evolutionary history. Use, control and, finally, initiation of fire were not mastered quickly nor easily for hominids, according to what I have read. The jump to using fire for cooking was most recent, according to the evidence of cooking hearths. And unfortunately, evidence for fire and its causes, is nowhere near as solid as it is for, say, stone tools. Geological changes often mask what little remnants remain of fires. (I wish I had a link to the main study, as that article was very short.)
One of my favorite surveys about prehistoric fires concerns whether or not the controlled use of fire coincided with home bases in hominids. It is a very long and somewhat technical piece, but well worth the read if you are interested in what evidence there is for fire, and in which ways such evidence is disputed and may be evidence for wildfires, scavenger stockpiles of hominid bones (instead of hominid home bases), etc.
The evidence from the 790,000-year-claim is also labelled "inconclusive" by a number of sources, with a mention of how the site has been partially destroyed etc, and there are a number of skeptics of this 790,000-year-claim.:-
Here's a quote from the web, showing how cooking was not in evidence at Yaakov re the 790,000-year-claim:-
" A 0.79 Myr old site in Israel [Gesher Benot Ya'aqov, Science 304 (2004) 725)] has more credible evidence, though there does not seem to have been any cooking or repeated fire creation. The earliest convincing evidence of fire use for cooking appears at the 0.3-0.55 Myr old late Homo erectus site at Zhoukoudian in China and the 0.4 Myr old presumed early archaic Homo sapiens site of Terra Amata near Nice. In both cases the evidence is primarily in the form of food refuse bones that were apparently charred during cooking. Unfortunately, there still is not sufficient evidence at either site to say conclusively that there was controlled fire in the sense of being able to create it at will. However, by 100 kya, there is abundant evidence of regular fire use at Neandertal sites. By that time, they evidently were able to create fires when they wished to, and they used them for multiple purposes." http://anthro.palomar.edu/homo2/mod_homo_3.htm
While the above paragraph gives credence to the Zhoukoudian Caves evidence, there are plenty of anthropologists who are highly sceptical of the Zhoukoudian evidence:-
http://www.jstor.org/pss/2743299
(Quoted from the above page):- "The association of fire with faunal remains, stone-tools and hominid fossils is far from conclusive and is most likely the result of noncultural postdepositional processed (Binford and Ho 1985, Binford and Stone 1986)". <snip>
Also re the weak evidence at zhoukoudian:- " The implication that h. sapiens was the first in the line of mankind to control fire was supported by evidence found at a site in Zhoukoudian, China. While it had been believed for some time that Zhoukoudian was the first site of controlled fire, evidence found through more exhaustive research indicates otherwise. There are no hearths at the site in China. Nor are there any food remnants. Such evidence leads to the belief that the burnt bones found at the site are probably the result of a natural fire (Wuethrich). The lack of strong evidence supporting the site as one in which man's control of fire is displayed supported the belief that h. erectus lacked technological prowess and culture." taken from:-
In short, any claim for much earlier dates for the invention of fire for warmth or for cooking are highly suspect, which is why the scientific community still sticks(roughly) to the 250,000-years-ago date for the invention of fire for cooking(as opposed to fire for warmth), as that's the only time when hearths can reliably be found all over the place.
I completely agree with Tyler. First off, the article is a dumbed-down news blurb which indicates nothing about the real evidence (much like news reports animal foods cause cancer even when the actual data show no such thing). They claim the flints are the smoking gun, but then say they don't know what methods were used for lighting fires!
Zhoukoudian location 1 is wrought with issues, as Tyler states. Some experts even have suggested that hyenas dragged H. erectus bones in the cave and the whole thing caught fire much, much later. So, even if you do have evidence for fire, you can't - as so many people are eager to do - jump to the erroneous conclusion that it means we were cooking!
Anthropogenic fire began as a way to ward off predators. Then after migration out of tropics and use of home bases, it kept us warm and gave us light in caves, while keeping carnivores away. Cooking was more like advanced weaponry, imho. Bow and arrows are how old? 40kya max? And food containers? How old? Anyone? You can roast a leg of meat on a stick, but without containers, you can't cook much else than that. You can't cook without some tools unless you want to cook your arm too. Think about it.
Title: Re: Humans made fire 790,000 years ago...
Post by: van on October 29, 2008, 02:41:03 am
Years ago in Hawaii I had the most delicious mackeral. We simply though it in a smoldering fire and came back an hour later. You can also heat flat rocks over a fire. So there are lots of ways to 'cook' foods without containers. But just for the record, I don't cook.
Title: Re: Humans made fire 790,000 years ago...
Post by: Satya on October 29, 2008, 05:03:05 am
Years ago in Hawaii I had the most delicious mackeral. We simply though it in a smoldering fire and came back an hour later. You can also heat flat rocks over a fire. So there are lots of ways to 'cook' foods without containers. But just for the record, I don't cook.
But you must have used some tool to get the fish off the fire, right?
Title: Re: Humans made fire 790,000 years ago...
Post by: JustAnotherExplorer on October 29, 2008, 04:54:26 pm
But you must have used some tool to get the fish off the fire, right?
Don't need anything more complicated than a stick for that.
Title: Re: Humans made fire 790,000 years ago...
Post by: goodsamaritan on October 29, 2008, 05:37:46 pm
My question is...
... now that I have learned raw food eating and I found it to be superior in nutrition and CONVENIENCE... ... what I would like to know is...
What was the real reason humans started cooking in the first place? Why did cooking become popular? Probably taste? Addiction? Did cooking come first or did condiments come first?
I think it has something to do with getting dumb and dumber. Every new generation copies the older generation and makes innovations that dumbs down the food even more. Just look at a fully decorated donut. What kind of idiots make those?
Title: Re: Humans made fire 790,000 years ago...
Post by: TylerDurden on October 29, 2008, 05:55:43 pm
The usual claim is that cooked-food "tastes better" and because it's needed in colder climates. The taste-issue is irrelevant, as it's all to do with what foods you're used to(what you eat in childhood and to a lesser extent what your mother ate during pregnancy also determine tastes) and the issue of cold climates is irrelevant, too, as most Arctic tribes happily eat raw animal foods without needing a mostly-cooked-food-diet for warmth.
A far more likely explanation is that cooked-food contains opioid peptides which cause addiction, much like dairy and grains.
Title: Re: Humans made fire 790,000 years ago...
Post by: goodsamaritan on October 29, 2008, 06:09:54 pm
Great idea regarding in-eutero feeding. The baby immediately tastes what the mother ate.
I've seen raw vegan families and raw vegan babies growing up on video.
How about raw paleo diet humans. It would be such a rush to pair up any of our RPD bachelors and RPD bachelorets and see if their baby in-eutero are born with no taste for cooked food. I'm sure one of these days it will happen...
Title: Re: Humans made fire 790,000 years ago...
Post by: Satya on October 29, 2008, 09:23:30 pm
The usual claim is that cooked-food "tastes better" and because it's needed in colder climates. The taste-issue is irrelevant, as it's all to do with what foods you're used to(what you eat in childhood and to a elsser extent what your mother ate during pregnancy also determine tastes) and the issue of cold climates is irrelevant, too, as most Arctic tribes happily eat raw animal foods without needing a mostly-cooked-food-diet for warmth.
A far more likely explanation is that cooked-food contains opioid peptides which cause addiction, much like dairy and grains.
Cooking not only changes tastes, but it makes a big aroma. Wouldn't that attract predators to your campfire?
Title: Re: Humans made fire 790,000 years ago...
Post by: TylerDurden on October 29, 2008, 09:26:01 pm
Well, when I've ate my raw meat outside on the terrace in Italy, I couldn't help but notice that the flies were far more attracted to the smell of my raw meats than to the smell of the cooked-foods that other people were eating, no matter how much seasoning etc. had been added.
Title: Re: Humans made fire 790,000 years ago...
Post by: Nicola on October 29, 2008, 10:15:58 pm
Well, when I've ate my raw meat outside on the terrace in Italy, I couldn't help but notice that the flies were far more attracted to the smell of my raw meats than to the smell of the cooked-foods that other people were eating, no matter how much seasoning etc. had been added.
Flies lay eggs on protein; perhaps the cooked-foods was just/more vegetation. Raw meat will attract flies - they smell blood!
Nicola
Title: Re: Humans made fire 790,000 years ago...
Post by: William on November 24, 2008, 10:59:57 pm
Cooking not only changes tastes, but it makes a big aroma. Wouldn't that attract predators to your campfire?
Yes, it would. The paleolithic campers would then seize the would-be predator with cries of glee, skin it and make babies on its soft furry hide.
Why do so many think our ancestors were wimps, when we know that they were bigger stronger quicker and IMHO smarter than us, and they had sticks. Sharp ones.
So that's a reason for cooking - to make meat strong-smelling enough for bait. Bait works. My neighbours still use it to get the annual deer. I have seen polar bears walk past a dead goose for days, until one day the smell of rotten goose was strong enough, then it was noticed and eaten.
Then there's the story of the modern hunter in southern Africa who was attacked by a mated pair of leopards. He grabbed one by the hind leg, and beat both to death by using it as a club.
Check on berserker strength, psychologists call it hysterical strength, we really can be as strong as any ape when required.
Title: Re: Humans made fire 790,000 years ago...
Post by: RawZi on November 29, 2008, 01:28:40 pm
The usual claim is that cooked-food "tastes better" and because it's needed in colder climates. The taste-issue is irrelevant, as it's all to do with what foods you're used to(what you eat in childhood and to a elsser extent what your mother ate during pregnancy also determine tastes) and the issue of cold climates is irrelevant, too, as most Arctic tribes happily eat raw animal foods without needing a mostly-cooked-food-diet for warmth.
A far more likely explanation is that cooked-food contains opioid peptides which cause addiction, much like dairy and grains.
Does cooking really cause opioid peptides to be created in all food? I was thinking Something like that, but not exactly.
Title: Re: Humans made fire 790,000 years ago...
Post by: goodsamaritan on November 29, 2008, 02:40:35 pm
Yes, it would. The paleolithic campers would then seize the would-be predator with cries of glee, skin it and make babies on its soft furry hide.
Why do so many think our ancestors were wimps, when we know that they were bigger stronger quicker and IMHO smarter than us, and they had sticks. Sharp ones.
So that's a reason for cooking - to make meat strong-smelling enough for bait. Bait works. My neighbours still use it to get the annual deer. I have seen polar bears walk past a dead goose for days, until one day the smell of rotten goose was strong enough, then it was noticed and eaten.
Then there's the story of the modern hunter in southern Africa who was attacked by a mated pair of leopards. He grabbed one by the hind leg, and beat both to death by using it as a club.
Check on berserker strength, psychologists call it hysterical strength, we really can be as strong as any ape when required.
This is an awesome insight! ;D
Title: Re: Humans made fire 790,000 years ago...
Post by: TylerDurden on November 29, 2008, 08:25:38 pm
Does cooking really cause opioid peptides to be created in all food? I was thinking Something like that, but not exactly.
Here's a relevant link:- http://www.13.waisays.com/ADHD.htm
Title: Re: Humans made fire 790,000 years ago...
Post by: avalon on December 02, 2008, 02:30:41 am
I don't know what to believe anymore ???
It makes sense that the ACT of cooking food does in some way simulate the breakdown of food in our bodies and hence makes the food more available from the start, provided you don't throw the Baby out with the bath water. meaning eating foods in soups or stews preserves the nutrients to a large degree.
And is it impossible to think that meat vs vegetable matter cook differently? Maybe meat is meant to be eaten raw to- rare and certain veggies, yes, cooked.
Can you imagine, our imaginations exploding upon the discovery of Fire or Cooking or Both? Can you imagine asking yourself, well, what can we try and cook next? What can we throw in the pot? Carved out stone? What could we try cooking in leaves under stone and dirt?
What is it about walking into a home that's had the Crockpot going for 8 hours or more? Or waking up to a Crockpot in the morning? Why does this touch our sense of delight? Why does the smell of cooked meat begin to repel Vegans who have given up meat for some time?
Man is living such an unnatural existence- most men/women, compared to those lucky few who do live closer to nature and off the land that it shouldn't be surprising we face so many issues OH FOR GOD'S SAKE I'M DRINKING WINE!
Before i slink off to the shadows, last night on TBN was a presentation of The Bible: In the Beginning. I didn't watch the whole thing. I did watch up to and including most of Noah...
Why was the fall of Man connected with FOOD? Eating of the tree. It could have been anything! Anything Else! Why our basic need, nourishment? Why a food growing off a tree? Why wasn't it the killing of a Cow? The killing of another like Eve or Adam? It's mind blowing really. Why does the Bible- yes, the greatest book, true or falsified by man ever written, begin with Man's original diet being Vegan? Were we Monkeys? Were there Aliens that shock-treatmented us on our big brained ways? Why don't we know this by now?
Could it be that we are the Virus?
Don't worry, it's a new month and tomorrow is a new day!
Best wishes, Avalon -v
Title: Re: Humans made fire 790,000 years ago...
Post by: avalon on December 02, 2008, 07:06:18 am
Okay, now that I'm sensible, where's the delete key? -v ;)