Okay, I'll add my two bits. I applaud Sean for having an alternative. For those of us hoping to never be paleovangelists, I think it is good to hear alternative arguments.
That said, Mr Stone made me raise my eyebrows. Anyone who says "obviously" and "clearly" that much seems to be wanting things to be clear or obvious when they maybe aren't. Example, from around 10 minutes in, (paraphrasing) "Obviously having agriculture when things weren't going so well was a good thing" -- without considering that it may have been a steady food source, but that doesn't mean it is a good food source.
Secondly, the problems he says he's seen with patients -- body temperature, autoimmune issues, etc -- I only see anecdotal evidence. Personally, I'd like science. Someone like Dr. O'Bryan was able to point to studies. (I actually want to contact him to find some of these papers on gluten issues to pass on to family).
Third, paleo ideology is very in-line with a lot of what I already think. It's also lowered my BS meter even further. I get that for some of us that it is a part of identity, but I don't see how that it leads to not making adjustments to diet "six months in". How many of us have fiddled around with the amount of carbs, or types of fat, etc, so that we keep feeling our best?
Fourth, I question his understand of epigenetics or genetics. Yes, we can adapt. But just because we can adapt doesn't mean we should adapt, to a point. We were adapted to SAD, but it wasn't ideal. Here, like with my other points, correlation does not imply causation.
I don't mind paleo criticism, but personally, I'd like some sounder logic. It seems to me that he has an overly simplistic view of paleo as something static, rather than a dynamic, day-in, day-out approach to what we put in our bodies.