In response to:

Science Demands Big Government!

WhereIsThereSanity Wrote: Jun 12, 2012 9:56 AM
M. Hillinger, I see this again and again and again in alleged "respones" to articles. The response indicates that the responder either did not read or does not understand the column. Prager claimed Leiberman alleged human-evolved response to COERCION. There was nothing in his column about humans and sugar (relationship). SO, DID YOU NOT READ THE ARTICLE or ARE YOU AN IDIOT?
inquisiteur Wrote: Jun 13, 2012 1:48 PM
M. Hillinger (aka Quiet Reason) Wrote: Jun 12, 2012 10:12 AM
"SO, DID YOU NOT READ THE ARTICLE or ARE YOU AN IDIOT? " I read the article and included quotes from it to support my view.

Apparently you did not since the evolved response was to sweet foods.

The title of the piece kind of gives it away "Evolution's sweet tooth"

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/06/opinion/evolutions-sweet-tooth.html
RightTeacher1 Wrote: Jun 12, 2012 10:01 AM
Where, Does it have to be one or the other?

The quotation of the week last week had to be that of Harvard professor Daniel E. Lieberman in an opinion piece for the New York Times.

Lieberman, a professor of human evolutionary biology, was among those who publicly defended New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg's plan to ban the sale of sugared soft drinks in cups larger than 16 ounces.

And he did so using, of all things, evolution.

Now, we all know that humans have always needed -- or evolved to need -- carbohydrates for energy. So how could evolution argue for Mayor Bloomberg's ban...