rather than just saying an absolute, why not give some facts as to why "you agree with those who say paleo is BS".

I'm not suggesting it isn't but your dismissive comment doesn't enlighten those who are not aware of the controversy.

Not explicitly about paleo, but with lots of anti-paleo evidence: http://www.amazon.com/How-Not-Die-Discover-Scientifically-eb...

Is there a controversy? Eating more nutrious food and fewer calories (assuming a previous diet of too many calories and poor nutrucian) typically benefits people whether it's paleo, vegan or just a regular healthier diet.

Paleo's basic premise is loosly based on the malnourishment seen when we transitioned from a diverse hunter-gatherer diet to a much less diverse agricultural diet (largely caused by iron deficiencies). Its a misunderstanding of history. We ate those foods before, but they weren't the ONLY things people ate. The result is ultimately still restricting diet to healthier foods which means it's nutricious, but still unnecessarily restrictive and without a realistic premise.

I don't get why paleo diet is not congruent. So our DNA is build upon iterations(generations), and the aliments that were eaten in the majority of those are better suited for our current generation.

Any argument?

The "vast majority" of our ancestors were single cell beings.

Right, so including how close in time were those generations happening(compared to the actual one), then that diet would be still valid?

Valid for what? You have no obligation to eat what your ancestors ate. Our ancestors certainly didn't, which is why they didn't eat like single-celled organisms. If what you are thinking were true, it would be true for them as well.

Not to mention the fact that your food has evolved as well.

I didn't say obligation. After reading here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4091895/

My question was an oversimplification.