Well none of the raw diets have been around for long enough to know how it works in the long term;
Raw Paleo diets were the sole dietary style of all primates up to at least 1.9 mya if not more recently (and Tyler has argued strenuously that it continued on raw for more than a million more years) and going back millions of years to the very dawn of life on this planet. Paleo diets that included cooked foods continued for most humans right up until around 10 thousand years ago and continued further for some.
at least the theory behind the wai diet is extensively backed up by scientifically proven and logically sound facts and claims.
So you claim. I have seen plenty of science backing Paleo and raw. I haven't come across any yet supporting a Wai diet specifically.
It doesn't rely solely on egg yolks and fish.
I meant to include fruits--sorry about that--and you also mentioned nuts, but you're ducking some of the questions. I'll take your lack of answer re: KD to mean that you acknowledge that he didn't write that "we're not biologically suitable to eat fruits, egg yolks and fish."
Again, why are you excluding all other foods beyond fruits, egg yolks, fish and some nuts? Is there something wrong with nonfish-meats, organs, animal fats and veggies?
Is there some freely available, nice description of the raw paleo diet (with something more than a short description of a subforum)?
There is
http://www.rawpaleodiet.com/, though I don't agree 100% with all of it and there is a variety of views within the broader Paleo dieting community.
What is THE reference for the raw paleo diet?
Tyler seems to be the self-appointed Minister of Truth when it comes to what is raw Paleo.
To me, the specific foods are less important than the fundamental scientific model, avoiding the worst of the Neolithic agents (within which I would include refined and heated sweeteners like processed sucrose), and overall balance in the diet. Biological adaptation (or design if you're a creationist) vs. discordance seems to be key, much of the rest is details and people will argue forever over the details.
Do you or Wai claim that his diet is a raw Paleo diet? If so, feel free to make the case--such as, what is the fundamental scientific hypothesis that underlies it all?
...I'd say you're making some compromises here just as it's done in the wai diet.
I don't claim to eat 100% raw Paleo and if I were eating Wai I wouldn't either.
I don't think people in paleo times were growing [organic] domesticated fruits. We are not living in the paleo era....
Straw man. I haven't seen any of the leading proponents of raw or cooked Paleo claim that we are living in the Paleo era. They only talk about approximating the diet we're adapted to, not precisely duplicating it, which it doesn't take a genius to figure would be impossible.
a diet besides being healthy should be also as convenient as possible.
Now I'm pretty sure domesticated fruits don't fit into the paleo definition, but I don't think having those makes a diet less paleo.
How can both of those statements be true? Clearly domesticated fruits are less Paleo in the sense of less like the wild African and Eurasian fruits of the Paleolithic era. That doesn't necessarily mean that no one can get away with including domesticated fruits in their diet without spoiling their health.
Domesticated fruits are still the same stuff as wild fruits, just a bit more convenient for us.
What is your evidence that the only difference between wild and domesticated fruits is convenience and what do you mean by it exactly?