I find that most fish is too bland and light, and I don't enjoy the texture much. I have the same problem with skinless chicken breast. However, if I marinate these meats in lemon juice, they become really tasty. The fish usually turns softer and mushier, but very tasty, and the chicken breast turns firm for some reason, and has a much chewier texture that I really like. Plus the taste improves a lot.

Fish eyes are pretty tasty however, and sometimes are amazing. They seem to be better and sweeter when the fish is very fresh, they even taste almost like fatty berries sometimes. Fish organs are disgusting, they're one of the most bitter things in the world.

Chicken legs/thighs, the organs and the bone marrow I really enjoy as is. I haven't had conventional chicken yet, and I don't think I will. But some people claim to like it.

Most cuts of pork are really tasty too, especially if it's organic.

From beef I've only had conventional grain finished. The lean meats are tasty (though not ask much as organic pork or organic chicken), but the fat is usually pretty disgusting. Some of the fat will be okay sometimes, but most will be almost inedible in my opinion. By contrast, pork fat is pretty tasty, and it will only taste bad if it's from conventional pork, and then again only some of it will taste bad, maybe like 50%. Or it will only start tasting bad after you had more than a little.

Rabbit isn't bad, but it's too lean. Rabbit brain is pretty good, but you only get a tiny amount of it per rabbit. I haven't noticed a lot of difference between conventional and organic rabbit. They were probably both fed the same all-grain diet. It tastes almost identical to chicken, minus most of the fat. And the meat is a bit more firm.

Conventional goat I don't particularly enjoy, but it's edible.

Conventional lamb is pretty good.

Oysters can either be a mouth watering gift from the gods, or really yucky things that you eat only because you spent so much money on them. It's hard to get the good ones. I'd say I only get good ones about 20% of the time I buy them.

Squid is amazing. Well, most of it is. The tentacles, mouth and eyes are. The "body" is only good if you remove the skin, otherwise it tastes pretty bad. Oh and the organs are as bad as fish organs.

What you wrote is right with processed, cooked and mixed stuff, but false with raw, unprocessed and unmixed "paleo" stuff, aka things that have been around in our environment ever since millions of years. Otherwise our predecessors in our evolutionary lineage would have all died from poisoning themselves by toxic stuff that tasted good to them, and we wouldn't be here!

But salt is a processed and cooked stuff

That said, I should correct what I said before. Salt on meat is not particularly appealing. However, salt on freshly sliced tomatoes tastes amazing.

Also, if I just take a tiny flaxseed-sized crystal of salt and slowly dissolve it in my mouth like candy, it tastes really good.

Both, Pottenger and Price, compared diets of cooked various foods including cooked milk or dairy against diets of various raw foods including raw dairy. Of course, they found out that populations (of cats and humans) having a raw diet had a better health than those having a partly or completely cooked diet!

They didn't compare populations having a raw diet without dairy against populations having a raw diet with dairy.   

And who compared populations with a raw diet without dairy to populations with a raw diet + raw dairy?

In his cat studies, Dr Pottenger discovered that cooked and processed milk caused bone deterioration, as well as a host of other diseases, while raw and nontoxic milk helped with or cured these problems.

Selective breeding might create some problems but it also reduces others. For example, most of the greens we eat have been selectively bred to have a lower toxin load than their wild counterparts.

And dogs being tame is an important part of their role as work animals for certain tasks.

Rather than discard selective breeding altogether, I suggest we embrace it and attempt to selectively breed plants, fruits, meats, eggs and dairy that are more beneficial for our health than their current domesticated versions. We could start from wild, or from the already domesticated versions.

GMO is a completely different thing, where even according to the scientists doing it, they blast genes from one species onto another in a lab and create a chimera monster that could never arise naturally even under the rarest conditions. Then you end up with a spider-pig or fungi-fish.

I've had low quality lungs from rabbit and goat. They're not something I would consider tasty, but are edible. You're left feeling like you just had your vegetables. You do it for whatever special nutrition they might contain, but it's not enjoyable.

I suspect higher quality sources might taste better.

Pumkin:

AV or Aajonus Vonderplanitz only ate raw foods. He considered parasites to be a good thing, but they refused to live in his body for most of his life, something he attributed to the fact that his body was too polluted from a poor diet and lifestyle and medical treatments early in his life.

That's interesting. I could believe that simians originated in Asia, but it's unlikely that apes did as well. The article only mentions simians as a general group, anyway.

Also, the hypothesis seems like they're taking quite a leap. In order for something like this to make sense, we would have to expect that fossils would've been much more commonly formed (and remained) in Africa than in Asia at that time. Or perhaps if Africa had been searched much more extensively by fossil hunters than Asia.

It would be interesting to see if they come up with new finds in Asia for these little critters that predates those in Africa.

While this is bad, I'm more worried about chemicals and heavy metals from industrial and household waste. I wonder if anyone has done a measurement like this for soaps, detergents and other cleaning products.

Floating plastics, while they will stay there for longer, can be avoided by marine lifeforms to a large extent, even if not completely. But toxins that dissolve in the water can't be avoided.

Btw, elephants will often destroy trees with no apparent immediate purpose. Some biologists think it's because they know trees block the sunlight and destroying the trees makes more way for grasses to grow, which are the main staple of their diet.

The theory sounds a little outlandish when you first hear it, but elephants do have amazing memory and long lifespans. One can only guess if this is the reason they're doing it, or if it's something else.

Why don't you live with your brother, Tyler?

Depending on the climate, the idea would be to produce most of the foods on-site. We'd produce much more than our guests could consume so we'd also sell food to the locals. For foods that could not be produced on-site, we'd purchase them in bulk.