Errr... unfortunately I can only find this anecdotal source where it's claimed 
that the sugar content is down to less than half that of the wild dates.

http://beyondveg.com/billings-t/fruit-table/wild-cultiv-fruit-1a.shtml

The website itself of course is arguing against the idea of fruit being a great 
source of nutrients... really it's not a well-liked site and it just trying to make 
fun of every kind of diet. Also people are bound to be attracted to nutritious, 
healthy ones as well, I personally prefer the sourer ones.
  
There is not much reason humans would prefer the sugar-laden ones. Maybe a 
little bit, but remember that it's only in the past 50 years or so we really got 
going in artificial selection. Artificial selection itself has been around since the 
dawn of mankind: "I don't like these apples, I'll take the sweeter ones over 
there".... and that seed was propagated. So sure, we may have come across 
particularly sweet fruit (again, IF that, because I'm not so sure we did select 
the most sugary ones, humans are also attracted to nutritious ones!!!!)... but 
eating nearly all fruit you're still living life extremely close to your ancestors. I 
would forget about this "artificial selection" and the farcical, contemptable 
comparison with PROCESSED sugar, it's the pesticides and agricultural 
treatment that warrant much more attention. 

If this is such a major issue, then maybe I'll go to Africa myself, into an 
unhabited area and pick the fruits there myself. I doubt they'll be much if any 
different (except maybe less nutritious). Then grow those seeds organically 
year after year!!!!

On Wed, 1 Jul 2009 18:50:41 -0700, Andrea Hughett <[log in to unmask]> 
wrote:

>--- On Wed, 7/1/09, Padraig Hogan <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> Many fruits
>> such as dates have far less sugar than their wild
>> counterparts,
>
>Can you provide some data to support this?
>
>Andrea
>
>
>