>Dependency on vitamin C (as only primates and very view animals show)
>could have evolved, in my opinion, only in an environment where the
>regularly vitamin C supply was so constant and high than body's
>synthetisation wasn't used for *very many* generations.

This is probably an erroneous concept. The mutation in primates
disabling the GLO gene for endogenous ascorbate probably occurred
one fine day many millions of years ago, and quite rapidly spread
after all that extra energy was freed up, giving an advantage to
the new dietary ascorbate-dependent primates. It would probably
take only a dozen generations to displace the older nonmutants.

>
>>The best evidence that mother nature begins to care less for us after
>>middle age is that we begin to fall apart physically.
>>If natural selection did not in actuality disfavor old humans vs young
>>humans then we would not lose our
>>vision and our teeth as we grow old.

Fallacy alert! Bad eyes and tooth loss have definite dietary
components as contributing factors. That mankind's teeth started
going to hell after widespread Neolithism is highly suggestive
of poor nutrition vis a vis minerals and vitamin deficiency.
Tooth decay from excessive sugars and poor remineralization,
combined with scorbutic collagen degradation, all contribute
to tooth loss. There are many people who die of old age with
all their teeth and with clear vision, at any rate.

As cultures abandoned the Paleo WOE/WOL, by necessity or by choice,
human health took a nose dive. Saying that people are programmed
to self-destruct fits a gloomy, predestination-based pessimism:
Before it was the gods or God that preordained the failure of
mankind in old age -- now it's fashionable blame our genes.
Either way it's a cop-out, giving in to pseudo-mystery and
shirking responsibility.