Paul Saladino· MD
I would say well what mate what enabled that and that was more effective hunting
Loading…
The headline is broadly defensible, but the qualifications matter. Effect sizes vary by population, the strongest claims rest on shorter trials, and credible voices push back on how it's typically framed.
I would say well what mate what enabled that and that was more effective hunting
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.
i think it was probably just the cooking of meat or the fact that we were safer because we could defend our territory we could move more freely we could get more food by hunting animals more readily with fire we could hunt them at night we could protect our camps at night we could use fire for all sorts of things i really believe that hunting and access to animal foods is the major trigger rather than the cooking itself