OK, then at least we can agree on probably. You say probably not and I say probably so 
and I could be wrong. No way of definitively proving it, so we're left with our own experience,...
Yeah, that’s the point: it doesn’t really matters if consumption of meat and honey at the same meal occurred often or seldom and since how long ago.
In principle, in instincto nothing forbids to eat different foods one after the other. Thus, and still in principle, there’s no reason why we could not eat honey soon after meat or meat soon after honey. But
experience has shown that this is generally prone to cause poor digestion and overloads. Anyway, it depends on the person and the respective amounts; it may perhaps be ok for some people. It’s a matter of feeling and if we feel hungry enough and feel that we’ll be able to digest such a combo, then let’s try it. But most of us have neither the digestive capacity of a healthy hunther-gatherer nor as much physical activity.
As a European, I’m not used to eat sweets along with meats, eggs or fish: it’s something completely alien to our culture, something typically North American that we tend to regard as coarse ways and lack of proper culinary customs. But most of all, I find it crazy to mix honey and meat to increase one’s appetite also because:
- We should eat according to our spontaneous appetite and if we have none, the natural thing to do is not eat.
- In nature, honey is in comb and thus we can’t pour it on meat
- By premixing raw foods, we can’t know how much of each we should eat and experience shows that by doing so we can easily overtake our digestive capacity, thus have an indigestion and/or get into an overload of various nutrients you sure can meander. If you actually relate what I wrote to the mainstay of this discussion,, at least for the last two pages,, no animal mixes, freezes, powders, dries, ferments, cooks, etc.. But man does, and my guess is that early man,, thousands or millions of years ago did the same.
Cooking couldn’t have been done millions years ago because our ancestors have used the fire since a few hundred thousands years only. As for food processing such as powdering or freezing, technology is needed. “Early man” lived in the tropics and thus could not let his food naturally freeze.
Why, because he's possibly more curious, or creative than an animal.
I’m not sure about that.
And, hence, trying honey on meat is Not such an inProbable occurrence. Again, I'm not saying its 'healthy' or that it was their mainstay, or that we should do it or not do it. But to insist that early man acted just as animals or were completely in alignment with only animal practices/instincts is in my opinion Instincto Dogma.
It’s unfortunate that you don’t understand French and hence could not follow GCB’s seminar in which he explained in great length that his theories are more questions than the ultimate truth, that the practice is an experiment to try to find provisional answers, like all scientific theories propose. Therefore it’s a stupid mistake and total lack of knowledge to call it “dogma”. Sorry, but I would rather not have to read such nonsense.
The transition from apes to “early man” was of course gradual, there’s no clear boundary between apes and hominids. Moreover, we are apes.
Christopher Ryan & Cacilda Jethá assert that we are apes (thanks to GS for the info about these authors):
Forget what you’ve heard about human beings having descended from the apes. We didn’t descend from apes. We are apes. Metaphorically and factually, Homo sapiens is one of the five surviving species of great apes, along with chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas, and orangutans (gibbons are considered a “lesser ape”). We shared a common ancestor with two of these apes—bonobos and chimps—just five million years ago. That’s “the day before yesterday” in evolutionary terms. The fine print distinguishing humans from the other great apes is regarded as “wholly artificial” by most primatologists these days.
Cheers
Francois
