No way. I never would have thunk that. Thank goodness this study came out of Harvard telling us that cooking food might reduce the amount of bacteria on bone marrow.
Less sarcastically the author of the study is implying, with no real evidence that I can see from his abstract, that early man cooked in order to reduce the chances of illness from food. His evidence is that bacteria grows quickly, within 24 hours, and therefore would have caused illness in early man, so he had to cook it to eat it.
I was talking about this the other day with a doctor I know. How people...to advance it al little...in the 1500 managed to survive field hospitals (particularly referencing the Battle of Malta where supplies ran so short they reused bandages). Today we sterilize the air we breath before we go into the body, in those days they sawed off limbs with razor wire, folded and stitched the skin and sent them on their way. Some lived, some died.
But some lived.
How? My guess is that those people in early times who survived beyond infancy were actually biologically stronger than those who didn't, meaning they were able to fight off simple infections. Today a cold is incapacitating to many...in those days a man could blow his hand off with a grenade and strap a dead chicken to the stump and keep fighting (this at the Battle of Lepanto).
How did early man survive scrapping raw flesh and not dying of bacterial infection? The same darn way that a lion or a vulture does today.
Or the same way THIS kid does: