I disagree with your statements here strictly on scientific reasoning. First off, the paleo-diet was not consistent and there was no singular evolutionary diet. The diets were highly localized and you are leaving out one, if not the, main staple.
Vegetables aren't likely to make up much of the paleo diet. They were bitter tasting and in general veggies don't add much caloric value. Hungry people aren't going to subside on something that would amount to the nutritional value of eating grass. Also, modern vegetables have been highly selected for obvious properties and have little semblance to what may have been consumed 10,000 years ago. The anti-grain argument should apply the same here.
Eggs. How many ground birds were there producing scavengable eggs? Eggs are protein and protein was hard to come by back in the day.
You leave out any mention of roots, ferns, cottontails, etc. Humanity has evolved on starch based foods for much, much longer than 10,000 years. Why do you think we were able to evolve into cultivation-based societies? Because we had been consuming and subsiding on starch for a very long time. We have an enzyme called alpha-amylase that digests starch. Wheat, corn, potatoes, roots, ferns, cattails... the starch is all the same mixture of 2 compounds: amylose and amylopectin. We could not have evolved to agriculture based societies without the ability to digest starch with this enzyme. There is a strong deductive reasoning argument that these societies could not have formed without an evolutionary adaptation toward a grain-based diet.
