Flour – well, in the end, I think the starch from it can be digested raw. There's no point in cooking it.

The digestibility of starch actually depends on the method and duration of cooking. Take pasta, for example. Slightly undercooked (or, rather, Italians consider this to be properly cooked) – it's a source of "slow" carbohydrates, overcooked – "fast" ones. I strongly suspect that raw pasta is digested even worse than undercooked pasta.

Yogurt? No fruit additives are needed.

I agree. On the other hand, I dress fruit/vegetable salads with yogurt, and the taste of both products only benefits from this.

Fats? There's no point in eating any at all; you can get vitamin D from the sun.

Hold on! How are you going to get vitamins A and E, considering that they are fat-soluble, and eating carrots without sour cream or yogurt won't help you get them?

Therefore, it makes sense to eat only the most dietary and bland meat, like boiled beef. Therefore, it makes sense to eat only the most dietary and bland meat, like boiled beef. Fried food is also unnecessary. Chocolate, candy? What's the point if you urgently need calories? Eat refined sugar, and you'll be happy.
No, you can use this philosophy, but why? You can get the same thing by combining taste and benefit if you know how. And people always do this because taste is an important part of food. Those raw eggs... Well, the protein will coagulate when cooked, so what? The same thing will happen in the stomach. I'm not a nutritionist, so I might be wrong, but I don't see how a raw egg can be more beneficial than a regular one. And in everything else...

IMHO, what you eat for lunch depends on your opportunities, predispositions, and goals. Suppose I only have jam and cookies available; then I will eat jam and cookies, and I won't turn up my nose at the fact that it's not very healthy and too sweet. Because the only criterion in this case is opportunities.
But if I have a richer choice than "sweets or nothing," and my health is not the best, and some things that are useful for others are harmful to me (let's say, peanuts, which cause anaphylactic shock in some), then I will compose a diet differently, based on what is useful for me.
Taste and appearance are, of course, important, but they are not the primary factors. IMHO.