See my replies below regarding "not real science". I'm happy to accept your point in that regard.
As for #1 and #2 - we've created a kibble/pellet formula for virtually every other animal on planet earth. Why not humans? Seems incredibly narrow minded to me.
Not to mention that the average american diet is atrocious so the bar for an improvement is pretty low.
Perhaps my original statement was a bit strong. I guess I should say that our level of understanding is not proportionate to the types of conclusions we accept when it comes to food.
Compared to our understand of fluid dynamics, our understanding of nutrition is almost non-existent. Are eggs good for you? Should I drink cows milk? Do multivitamins do anything?
Firstly, nutrition science is not real science - we don't have a full understanding of how our body processes foods, etc to be able to model it properly. So it's not real science.
Secondly, having a balanced nutrition isn't nearly as complicated as you make it out to be. Variety and everything in moderation. Humans would have evolved to be able to live off a variety of different diets and foods. Most of our history involved a food shortage and so a very specific set of nutritional requirements would definitely not have been selected for.