>This seems to assume that paleoman was so stupid that he could not know
>whether or not he was sick from eating cooked meat, this is likely to
>affect his hunting success.

Hmmm. So, he would have tried cooked meat and "obviously" gotten
sick. If that's the case, cooking should have never "evolved".

>No choice? In a planet teeming with edible animals?

Again, you make it sould like paleoman lived in some sort of naturalistic
Chuck-O-Rama. How many planet-wide hunts do you think occured?

>No marks of disease, rare injuries on their bones, which are perfectly
>formed, unlike ours. Looks like they lived better than we, they
>certainly ate better otherwise why are we trying to copy their diet?

We are trying to emulate their diet because we have strayed too far into
world of overprocessed garbage-food. Did they live better than we did?
I don't know. I don't have a time machine. 

>They were wiser.

Perhaps. But they were also slaves to whatever their environment provided
them. You try to make it sound like eating raw was a choice for them.

If they were wiser/smarter than we, and had the choice to live a particular
lifestyle, then what do you suppose caused them to "fall"? The obviouse
answer was that they became agriculturalists. But, is that the cause or the
result?