Also if you are going to say that humans are designed and ignore Darwin's theory of evolution, you are going to lose you credibility on your thoughts on science.
This is a bad example, because ignoring what we have been 'designed' to eat, fruit is certainly designed to be eaten, which is even better. Just think about it: you can pick it, and leave it lying around for weeks and it is still fine. There are almost zero fruit-borne illnesses. When it is spoiled, it is obvious by looking at it or smelling it. I mean, this is something that has evolved to be eaten by large mammals. I don't think this is substantially changed by modern farming.
I don't understand your argument at all - you are saying that foods that are designed to be eaten are inherently better?
Sugar is sugar. It doesn't matter if the sugar has been added through selective breeding or just added afterwards. The only reasons fruits are a little bit healthier than soda with the same sugar/micronutrient content is the fibers in the fruit that makes it harder to consume too much of it.
The original comment was arguing that modern fruit is not 'natural' due to farming practices. My argument is that this isn't the example to choose, because of all things, fruit is among the best things to eat.
There is plenty of evidence that fruit consumption is good for you[1], which will obviously not be reproduced by drinking the equivalent flavoured soda. "A little bit healthier"? This is a joke?
Not really, at least not in any directed way. To the extent that you might say that evolution designed us to do, including eat, anything, it is only exactly whatever we do do.
Also if you are going to say that humans are designed and ignore Darwin's theory of evolution, you are going to lose you credibility on your thoughts on science.