How cooking helped us to evolve, page
Pages:
ATS Members have flagged this thread 3 times
Topic started on 20-9-2009 @ 12:50 PM by TLomon

How cooking helped us to evolve


www.timesonline.co.uk
It is the ultimate domestic cliché: a woman, pinafored and dutiful, tending a stove all day in preparation for her husband’s homecoming. As soon as he walks in, the ritual can begin: family members take their seats around the table (he sits at the head, of course) and dinner is served. Our couple are reliving a scene that has played out billions of times in our history because gender roles — husband at work all day, woman as homebody — have been forged not by relatively recent social conventions but by our distant evolutionary past.
(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.foxnews.com


reply posted on 20-9-2009 @ 12:50 PM by TLomon
I am really not sure where this should be filed under, so I put it here for now. Perhaps it can be moved if a moderator can decide upon where to put it.

What does it cover?
1) Health (Medical)
2) Evolution (Creationism)
3) Ancient Civilization

I can keep on going, but I think you get my point. Now, on to my comments!

The whole calorie intake thing makes a whole lot of sense to me. If we eat concentrated food (meat) vs. uncooked food (foraging), it would allow us to perform more for longer, giving us the ability to change from gathers to hunter/gatherers. We need energy to build things, to make things, to think about things. For the people who say raw food is better, this part caught my attention:


Cultural, historical and culinary clues point to the plausibility of Wrangham’s intuition. There is no society on Earth that does not cook; not a single people exists on raw food alone. The most remote hunter-gatherer tribes might not have microwaves, but they still pack beans in hot rocks. While the idea of modern humans as carnivores is well-established, our bodies cannot fend off toxins and bacteria found in raw meat, as you would expect if we had evolved to eat it uncooked. It is incredibly hard for us to bite into and digest raw tubers, such as potatoes. And there are no reliable accounts of survivors lasting for more than a couple of months on raw food; even the survivors of the 1972 Andes plane crash are reported to have cooked their fellow passengers before eating them.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


Very interesting stuff. Fire made us who we are today. Got to love evolution.

www.timesonline.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)


reply posted on 20-9-2009 @ 01:42 PM by djvexd
You know what, I agree with that assessment to a point. Just look at the 50's and preceeding years, however the 50's for the epitome of the condition. However where I verge is in the 60's and 70's the paradigm changed. Feminism became the push to get the womn out of the mother/cook role and into society on equal footing. And regardless it has been successful. I was born in 76. I have had 6 girlfriends and 2 wives. Only 1 of them actually KNEW how to cook food. It could be that their mothers were strong supporters of the feminism movement and taught thier daughters not to fall into that role. I don't know, that was just the way it was. It could also be said that they were young and fell into the 90's-new millenium mindset for women that bucked home life. Either way when I went to culinary school about 4 years ago, the ratio of men to women was 3-1. I think things have been turned upside down, for whatever that is worth. Honestly I think this "evolution" could have been for the best as it allows our women to finally utilize thier abundant mental skills( as well as different) to attack problems that we as men have been screwing up for ages...lol. Honestly, as a chef, I have no problem with cooking and making sure my "other" is well fed. (LAdies this is only my opinion)Women seem to enjoy and relax more than men when a great meal is presented and enjoyed. And as a man, the benefits of her happiness, are boundless...

[edit on 20-9-2009 by djvexd]


reply posted on 20-9-2009 @ 01:50 PM by Kryties
reply to post by feedpeopletosharks



That's why it is called a "hypothetical scenario". It's clearly inferred that is what it is meant as, I see nothing that infers they are claiming they actually have a chimp that will live for thousands of years.

/facepalm
Pages:     ^^TOP^^



How Are Plants Aware of the World Around Them?
  Posted 2 days ago with 5 member flags
The Genesis Code
  Posted 9 days ago with 4 member flags
Explain Diversity Reloaded
  Posted 10 days ago with 3 member flags
Tree of Life and Tree of Knowledge
  Posted 5 days ago with 3 member flags
The carrot (chicken or egg , vegetable version)
  Posted 4 days ago with 3 member flags
A theory of proof of a God
  Posted 11 days ago with 2 member flags
Eden: The Double Sided Coin
  Posted 4 days ago with 2 member flags
We are all connected with nature and The Universe IMO
  Posted 4 days ago with 2 member flags