[UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide]

It wouldn't be a detriment if it occured in a population that was already making use of plentiful food sources that provided vitamin C.

And since you don't know whether that was the case or not, you have another wild-assed guess. Yes, if you assume evolution and a continuous availability of environmental vitamin C you can hypothesize that there would be no detriment to natural selection. But you cannot then use that as evidence of evolution because that was one of your assumptions!

By the way, it doesn't do any good to shuffle them around because no matter which two you assume you have two unknowns for assumptions. You cannot solve two unknowns in one equation. And since natural selection has not been proven to cause macro-evolution, you cannot use it as an independent assumption.

[Dimensio]

By the way, it doesn't do any good to shuffle them around because no matter which two you assume you have two unknowns for assumptions.

What are you talking about? That the populations had access to vitamin C in their food sources is a given; if they didn't have it, they would have died out and they would not exist today. You're the one trying to turn it into an assumption because you are either totally ignorant of biology or you're a shameless liar trying to play semantic games.

You cannot solve two unknowns in one equation.

Who said that it was an unknown? If the populations didn't have access to vitamin C in their food sources, they would be dead. It's a given that if humans and apes share a common ancestor with a broken vitamin C synthesis gene, all divergent populations would have either had access to vitamin C through their food supply or they would have died out. This is not an assumption, it is a consequence of vitamin C deficiency. If you can't see that, even if you don't accept evolution, then you are either not terribly bright or you are being deliberately dishonest.

And since natural selection has not been proven to cause macro-evolution, you cannot use it as an independent assumption.

I'm not making an assumption. I'm pointing out lines of evidence that have led biologists to a conclusion. Is the conclusion proven? Well, no, but then nothing in science is ever proven.