I think it's important to note,
> therefore, that humans have *always* cooked, for as long as there have
> been humans.  Remember that the paleolithic era ends only about 12,000
> or so years ago, so any claim that cooking is "unpaleo" must be
> rejected.  If the paleo diet is to include what paleolithic humans ate,
> then it would include cooked food.

cooking have been used for a long time but the story  doesn't tell  the
extent of it , cooking is paleo but it doesn't mean cuisine is . cooking
became sytematic with the impoverishement in ressources of meats and the
replacement by plants ameliorated by cooking . meats don't get any benefit
nutritionally to be cooked .
the paleo way of cooking didn't authorised complex mixtures of foods . more
ther is differents foods cooked together and more  new molecules ( not
present in the food in tjhe first place ) are created .

  One might want to restrict the
> "paleo diet" to what pre-human hominids ate, but I'm not sure what the
> rationale would be for doing so.

when one have done the experience for enough long time to wean one self from
"new molecules " , it becomes clear that the body function way better .
going back to cooked foods is allways experienced as not so beneficial.(
except if it supply previouslly missing nutrients )
that is my experience and of many others . MY father changed to a  mainly
raw food diet  ( convinced by my exemple ) with some exceptions for social
meals at age 72 . at age 75 he died of a heart attack just after 2 copious
french christmas meals  without any warnings of cardiovascular disease.
jean-claude