>> What evolution? I keep asking for evidence, and I get hot air.
>
> Here's that moth story I told a few days ago that I first saw in my high
> school biology book several decades ago  - I managed to find it online
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evolution

A distinction is sometimes made between micro- and macro-evolution.  It's
usually skeptics of Darwinism who make the distinction, but for our
purposes it's useful.  Microevolution is adaptation within a species,
driven by natural selection.  The peppered moth case illustrates
microevolution.  Macroevolution is the evolution of new species from other
species.  William appears to believe that there is no evidence for the
evolution of human beings from other species.  There is evidence, of
course.  For example, the fact that humans and great apes, and almost no
other species, have the mutation that makes us unable to synthesize
vitamin C is evidence that we have a common ancestor who lived after that
mutation occurred.  That's just one piece of evidence, but it's evidence. 
William believes that we are meant to eat only raw meat, and no carbs at
all.  If so, it's a mystery that we (unlike cats) have taste buds for
sweetness, and produce the enzyme amylase in our saliva.  Amylase is an
enzyme for initiating the digestion of starch.  It would be pointless in
creatures meant to be completely carnivorous.  But these details would be
perfectly consistent with our having evolved from fruit- and
foliage-eating apes.

Having said all that, it's true that most of the dietary issues that we're
interested in on this list presuppose only microevolution, not
macroevolution.

Ubizmo