Larry wrote:
Not always. A lot of the claims by raw food faddists are wildly
exaggerated, misleading, or simply false. Here are a couple links to
help you sort through pseudo-science and myths spread by pro-raw faddists:

http://www.beyondveg.com/billings-t/...alism-1a.shtml
http://www.beyondveg.com/billings-t/...myths-1a.shtml

And here are some links refuting the propaganda on beyondveg...
http://ecologos.org/tb.htm

That's not a refutation, it's just ad hominem attacks. Still no takers
(or is it givers?) to give you a lot of money so you can slack off and
write a book?

The most important thing to understand about raw food is that our
species, as did all others on this little mudball, evolved on totally raw
food,

Where would we be if we hadn't started cooking our foods and adding
other foods beyond raw fruit? Your argument isn't evolutionary, it's
regressive. We're not knuckle-dragging quadripeds (well, you might be),
we're _Homo sapiens sapiens_.

and that cooking is a rather recent cultural fad

Only a few millenia old. Yeah, it's a fad. It also helped us develop
cognitively (excepting yourself again, "naturally") to where we are now.

that has led directly
to the wide-spread consumption of unhealthy items that simply could not be
eaten, unless cooked: flesh, grains and grain products, tough vegetables,
dried beans/legumes, woody roots, ...

Fresh grains can be eaten raw. I guess a city slicker like you wouldn't
know that.

Evolutionary benefits of those foods you think are "bad":
http://tinyurl.com/i1ev

BTW, I thought you killfiled me.