Homo sapiens has been eating raw meat for 100% of our existence. Witness indigenous groups on virtually all continents that, until forcibly assimilated by colonial forces, continued eating at least some of their meat raw.
In my opinion, there are many logical fallacies tossed about within the context of the cooking issue. Just because some people began cooking food at some point in the past doesn't mean that everyone across our entire geographic range did so. Cooking, as an adaptation, might have emerged in one remote location and remained an isolated behavior for centuries or millennia before it spread more widely. The archeological record isn't complete enough for anyone to draw well-founded conclusions regarding the geographical extent of cooking over time.
The incompleteness of the archeological record also prevents us from telling whether successive generations of people cooked their food, or whether it, as an adaptation, emerged and died out repeatedly due to being a failed experiment that caused more harm than good.
Finally, just because some people began cooking food at some point in history doesn't mean that they cooked all of their food. They might have cooked occasionally or even rarely, or only cooked particular things for strange reasons we can't fathom, but the artifacts of their occasional cooking survived for an archeologist/anthropologist to find (and interpret, with their prejudices biasing their interpretation).
I don't know when Homo sapiens started cooking our food or, in particular, our meat, or how common this behavior was geographically over time. I do know that my body is quite well adapted to eating certain types of foods without cooking them, particularly the meat of herbivorous land animals, some fish, and many types of fruits of vegetables. Personal experience should always be held higher than "science", in my opinion.
