First of all, never put anti-raw topics anywhere except in the Hot Topics forum. I'll move this topic there now.
Secondly, Daniel Vitalis is a somewhat retarded individual who clearly has not been reading much in the way of scientific literature on the damage caused by cooking.
First of all, there's the silly claim re us having the smallest stomachs of apes. Well, that is easily explained by scientists who have linked this to an increase in (raw)meat-consumption, well before the advent of cooking, which, apparently, led to bigger brains and smaller digestive systems as a result of eating calorie-high foods. The smaller jaws hypothesis could be explained by cooking or tool-use, but there are other ideas too re this.
Then there's the chewing claim by that village idiot, Richard Wrangham. This utter moron tried to claim that apemen would have had to chew raw meats for 5.7 to 6.2 hours in order to get enough calories each day. First of all, we rawpalaeos, RZCers or raw omnivores, certainly do not need to chew raw meats for that long to get enough nutrients, but, also, just like carnivores, we, mostly, just bolt the raw meats down after minimal chewing. So, this claim is particularly stupid and shows that Richard Wrangham has not even bothered to check with raw-meat-eaters such as Primal Dieters and the like.
His cooked tuber hypothesis has been debunked already by beyondveg.com, which, amusingly, is anti-raw too:-
"Recent tuber-based hypothesis for evolutionary brain expansion fails to address key issues such as DHA and the recent fossil record. As a case in point, there has been one tentative alternative hypothesis put forward recently by primatologist Richard Wrangham et al. [1999] suggesting that perhaps cooked tubers (primarily a starch-based food) provided additional calories/energy that might have supported brain expansion during human evolution.
However, this idea suffers from some serious, apparently fatal flaws, in that the paper failed to mention or address critical pieces of key evidence regarding brain expansion that contradict the thesis. For instance, it overlooks the crucial DHA and/or DHA-substrate adequacy issue just discussed above, which is central to brain development and perhaps the most gaping of the holes. It's further contradicted by the evidence of 8% decrease in human brain size during the last 10,000 years, despite massive increases in starch consumption since the Neolithic revolution which began at about that time. (Whether the starch is from grain or tubers does not essentially matter in this context.) Meat and therefore presumed DHA consumption levels, both positive *and* negative-trending over human evolution, track relatively well not simply with the observed brain size increases during human evolution, but with the Neolithic-era decrease as well, on the other hand. [Eaton 1998]
These holes, among others in the hypothesis, will undoubtedly be drawing comment from paleo researchers in future papers, and hopefully there will be a writeup on Beyond Veg as more is published in the peer-review journals in response to the idea. At this point, however, it does not appear to be a serious contender in plausibly accounting for all the known evidence.
" taken from:-
http://www.beyondveg.com/nicholson-w/hb/hb-interview1f.shtmlAnyone trying to pretend that cooking is beneficial to humans, needs to look at the extensive number of studies showing seriously harmful, long-term effects from consuming heat-created toxins derived from cooking, such as advanced glycation end products, nitrosamines, heterocyclic amines and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons.
