Definitely a case of the pot calling the kettle black. This piece is riddled with thin hypotheses presented as well supported theory and the thesis is a logical non-sequitur. Irrelevant whether the early hominids and early humans faced an often dangerous environment ; they managed to spread across the globe with more species success than any other group outside of birds. Plain silly to suppose that their knowledge of the relative benefits and hazards of food sources was limited to the point of posing dangers to them. The primary adaptation trick that humans have employed is building a fund of cultural knowledge and it makes no sense to suppose that they didn't have extensive and detailed knowledge of the various food sources available to them during their daily and yearly rounds. And on a more fundamental level they were obviously adapted through thousands of generations to survive/thrive on these sources, and given that today's paleo eaters face none of the dangers you cite those dangers are irrelevant in assessing the health benefits or drawbacks of eliminating the very modern foods that now dominate so many diets.