I think it is to be expected that a backlash would occur against the Atkins diet, largely because it kind of ruined a lot of other diets, so there are lots of people who feel disgruntled and other who like to debunk popular "myths". Note: I've never followed it.

However, talking about carbs rather than the Atkins diet. Really it has only been since the advent of agriculture than carbs have become such a major part of the human diet. Growing grain makes for a convenient supply of food which provides energy and keeps people alive.  In the case of rice, which contains some protein, it is literally enough to live on (though at some nutritional and developmental cost to the individual). Basically you dont have to chase it, and it has formed the basis of our progression from hunter gatherer and nomad to the formation of larger settlements.

So historically speaking why should a normal diet consist of substantial quantities of simple or complex carbs? I dont think this particularly represents what humans need.

Protein is a much more flexible food group - in simple terms it can be converted to muscle tissue AND used as energy.  I dont really accept that the Atkins diet (as actually presented in the book) is especially unhealthy or in fact flying in the face of proven nutritional advice. Though I dont buy that whole "ketones in your breath" metabolism change thing.  I've seen nothing to prove that at all.

I would also add that as humans in countries like the UK generally now perform less activity, it seems a natural change that we should endevour to cosume fewer carbs, whose role in our diet is pretty much just about providing a source of energy.

It seems logical eating fewer carbs causes weight loss due to eating fewer easily absorbed calories. If eating protein causes you to feel fuller quicker, is a trick of protein?  AFAIU it is a trick of carbs to not trigger that response in order for the person to eat more in order to pack some fat on - a natural mechanism to prolong survival.  An analogy being that - Oysters have no mechanism to store energy for later use (fat), but have a ubiquitous supply of food.  Polar bears have a massively effective function to store energy as fat and their food is few and far between. Humans store fat like a polar bear and have food as available as an Oyster.

I can't see how reversing the Atkins diet (eating more carbs and less protein) could result in similar weight loss. Carbs are purely an easily absorbed energy food, so would surely make striking a balance between calories ingested and calories used harder. Just switching doesnt make any sense. That seems to be just some silly way of suggesting of underlining the advice "dont cut out any one food group".  I'm not saying that is bad advice, but REDUCING the food group which centres around energy intake seems to make sense.