I believe it is you who are missing the point. And furthermore, how indeed another proof of God, that He designed most creatures with taste buds so they could protect themselves (if they didn't have the mental intelligence to decipher between good and bad) as opposed to his Crown creation who would use this wonderful function for a delightful purpose.
There's a couple answers to this.
First, you're actually just restating your initial point. Man takes delight in taste, only God could create the ability to experience delight, therefore taste is evidence of God. There are many other examples: music, art, humor, etc. The key question is whether our ability to experience delight could only have been provided by God.
It's been explained how taste can be placed within an evolutionary context. That doesn't mean it actually happened that way, it only means that taste is consistent with evolution.
So how do you choose between the two alternatives? If you're being scientific then you look at which one is better supported by the evidence. Evidence of actions by God have traditionally been problematic. We can study evolution in action in the present and project the understanding we develop onto historical scenarios such as the evolution of taste. How does one gather evidence of God in action from which to build up an understanding of how he works in order to do the same thing?
Second, it's important to note that one of the problems with using good things (such as delight) as evidence *for* God is that bad things automatically become evidence *against* God.
--Percy