>   It is a very solid theory
>> (*not* a hypothesis). Of course, it's not "proven". As others have
>> pointed out, science doesn't prove things true.
>
>
> Yes, the scientific reports I've read never use the word "proven", but
> they do use the word "show", which I take to mean that a competent and
> skeptical observer can see the truth of their finding.

That's a reasonable interpretation, but it's pretty much beside the point
whether scientists are as careful about which verb they use as they should
be.  Whether evidence "shows" or merely "suggests" isn't really the point.
 Rather, the point is that you have denied that there is any evidence for
human evolution at all.  In that, you are mistaken.  There is plenty of
evidence for it.

> I've read that the scientific process requires examination and criticism
> of every theory, otherwise we would have a (multi-billion $) cold fusion
> project.
> I'm not satisfied that this has been properly done for evolution of man.

That critical process is ongoing.  That's why there are so many debates
among paleoanthropologists about the details of human evolution.  Such
debates are what examination and criticism amount to in science.

> Still waiting for an answer - what has evolution to do with paleofood?

Quite a bit.

If the human species didn't evolve, then we can't explain anything about
human beings by considering what pre-human beings were like, and trying to
work out the evolutionary path that led from them to us.  If the human
species didn't evolve, there never were any pre-human beings, and no
evolutionary path to consider.

To take an example:  You have claimed that paleolithic people ate raw meat
and nothing else.  We might ask, then, why we have taste buds for
sweetness, and why we secrete amylase, an enzyme for digesting starch, in
our saliva.  If, on the other hand, we evolved from primates who ate quite
a bit of vegetable matter, including a good amount of fruit when
available, then it's not surprising that we would continue to have those
things.

On the other hand, if we take the theory that human beings involved from
apes, through various hominid stages, the details of which are still being
debated, we can align that theory with what we know about climate, flora,
and fauna in that part of the world where the evolution is likely to have
taken place.  Doing that, we can form a picture of an evolutionary
trajectory of increasing carnivory, from the relatively (but not totally)
non-carnivorous apes to the very (maybe exclusively?) carnivorous hominids
and eventually humans.

Evolution and paleofood are conceptually very closely linked.

Todd Moody