> [log in to unmask] wrote:
>   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.
>
>
>     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.
>>
>
> Yes, but there may be other and better theories which we will never hear
> because of the endless blather of the evolutionists.
> Information management applies here, as the ability to taste sweet might
> be seen as the ability taste poison, so that we may have free will to
> err/sin/choose.

The important word in your reply is "yes."  That is, yes, these facts are
evidence of evolution.  Might there be better theories, yet to come?  Of
course.  Evidence is not proof.  Scientific theories are open to revision
and replacement in the light of new discoveries.  That's why they're
called theories; because they are revisable.  Things that are proven are
not revisable, which is why the concept of proof has little relevance
outside of formal disciplines such as mathematics and logic.  To demand
proof of a scientific theory is to misunderstand the basic nature of
science.

The mere possibility that sweet taste buds are given to us so we can taste
poison doesn't rise to the level of a theory unless it, too, is revisable
in light of evidence.  You need to be able to say what counts as evidence
for it, and what would count as evidence against it.

Before about 200,000 years ago, the fossil record shows no sign of
anatomically modern humans.  It does, however, show signs of hominids,
going back 2.5 to 3.0 million years.  Before that, no hominids, but
various kinds of apes, some of which were more humanoid than currently
existing apes.  So, the facts suggest that humans were not always around,
but were preceded by hominids, and hominids were not always around, but
the first signs of them are in a part of the world where there were some
fairly humanoid apes.  Bone studies indicate that Australopithecus, for
example, ate plenty of fruit and vegetables.  So, which theory best
explains these observations?  One theory is that humans evolved from
hominids, which evolved from apelike species such as australopithecus. 
That theory would make sense not only of the fossil record, but also of
aspects of our physiology, such as the sweet taste buds.  The "poison"
theory doesn't do much.

But as I say, none of this really matters for our purposes.

> What does Ubizmo mean?

It means I forgot to change the signature on my mail program!

Todd Moody