TV Patrol feature on human evolution slammed for not recognizing Adam and Eve

[Monseratto]

Why you shouldn't take tall tales from the bible seriously....

https://www.facebook.com/tvpatrol.ab...9850470737009/

By Coconuts Manila February 22, 2016 / 11:53 PHT

A science-themed TV Patrol feature on the possible origin of human beings posted on Facebook last Feb 16 is still getting a lot of online action. Apparently, self-proclaimed defenders of the Bible are questioning the validity of the feature done by Kim Atienza.

In particular, they claim that the feature is fake because it does not recognize Adam and Eve, who, in the Bible, are identified as the first man and first woman.

One commenter noted, "Kung tayo ay galing sa unggoy bkit may unggoy pa hanggang ngayon? kht anong gawin ng science hnd parin nito kayang sukatin at abutin ang kapangyarihan ng ating Diyos (If we descended from monkeys, how come there are monkeys up to this day? No matter what Science does, it cannot measure the power of our God)."

Yet another commenter also stated, "Unggoy pala sina Adam and Eve? Kalukuhan to di naman sa Africa ginawa ng dios ang unang tao... Ang scientists kailan lang pinanganak yan kaya mas maniwala tayo sa Bible kasi mas nauna 'to (So Adam and Eve are monkeys? This is idiocy, as the first human were not created in Africa. Scientists were only born recently so we must believe in the Bible because it came first)."

What the heck is happening?

TV Patrol feature on human evolution slammed for not recognizing Adam and Eve | Coconuts Manila

[ess]

I've seen the "if humans evolved from monkeys, then why do we still see monkeys.." argument thrown around different forums and user groups over past couple of years.
It's as if those who commented were just waiting for their chance to make use of that argument. Masaya na sila.

[macsd]

Si Pakyou galing sa monkey. Look at Dionisia. :hysterical:

[Juan Martinez]

Si Pakyou galing sa monkey. Look at Dionisia. :hysterical:

this makes sense. still, macsd for president.

[Vodka]

LOL. typical and expected response from typical pinoys

just FYI coz there are also lots of "typical" pinoys here on tsikot if you know what i mean . humans didn't evolve from present-day monkeys! but we did evolve from a COMMON ANCESTOR. so chimps branched off another way. they're our COUSINS so to speak.

i'm not here to spoon-feed the ignorant so please just look it up. it's a scientific fact. no debate. no controversy

[ClaNker]

LOL. typical and expected response from typical pinoys

just FYI coz there are also lots of "typical" pinoys here on tsikot if you know what i mean . humans didn't evolve from present-day monkeys! but we did evolve from a COMMON ANCESTOR. so chimps branched off another way. they're our COUSINS so to speak.

i'm not here to spoon-feed the ignorant so please just look it up. it's a scientific fact. no debate. no controversy

You mean a scientific THEORY, yah got it.

[Vodka]

You mean a scientific THEORY, yah got it.

yes quantum THEORY, the kind used on the microprocessor you used to post that message worked just fine didn't it even if ITS JUST A THEORY ;)

hit up your favorite search engine for "theory" coz i don't think you know what it is spare yourself from further humiliation please

[niky]

The mountains of evidence, in terms of fossils, taxonomic evidence, genetic evidence and genetic markers are pretty overwhelming.

The most any educated creationist can say is that they agree with microevolution, but still disagree that macroevolution occurs.

Which is a bit like saying: "I believe that gravity exists, but I do not believe it applied to Jesus Christ."

You mean a scientific THEORY, yah got it.

No, the theory describes the process by which speciation occurs.

That speciation occurs is a fact. ;)

-

Also, Newton's "Law" of Universal Gravitation is not so much a Law as a disproven theory. It is still correct, in general, but woefully inaccurate compared to Einstein's "Theory" of General Relativity.

Though it's amusing that people still purposely confuse the meanings of Scientific Theory and Scientific Laws.

[Vodka]

The mountains of evidence, in terms of fossils, taxonomic evidence, genetic evidence and genetic markers are pretty overwhelming.

The most any educated creationist can say is that they agree with microevolution, but still disagree that macroevolution occurs.

Which is a bit like saying: "I believe that gravity exists, but I do not believe it applied to Jesus Christ."



No, the theory describes the process by which speciation occurs.

That speciation occurs is a fact. ;)

-

Also, Newton's "Law" of Universal Gravitation is not so much a Law as a disproven theory. It is still correct, in general, but woefully inaccurate compared to Einstein's "Theory" of General Relativity.

Though it's amusing that people still purposely confuse the meanings of Scientific Theory and Scientific Laws.

well it's a bit unfortunate that the colloquial and scientific meanings for the word "theory" are just totally different. so it makes "theory of evolution" sound like it's Darwin's wild idea that may or may not be true

[ClaNker]

The mountains of evidence, in terms of fossils, taxonomic evidence, genetic evidence and genetic markers are pretty overwhelming.

The most any educated creationist can say is that they agree with microevolution, but still disagree that macroevolution occurs.

Which is a bit like saying: "I believe that gravity exists, but I do not believe it applied to Jesus Christ."



No, the theory describes the process by which speciation occurs.

That speciation occurs is a fact. ;)

-

Also, Newton's "Law" of Universal Gravitation is not so much a Law as a disproven theory. It is still correct, in general, but woefully inaccurate compared to Einstein's "Theory" of General Relativity.

Though it's amusing that people still purposely confuse the meanings of Scientific Theory and Scientific Laws.

Pag evolution ang pinag uusapan dapat sabihin mo Sicientific fact and theory.

Yes I belive that evolution happend and yes the theory of natural selection is garbage.

Satisfied now?

[Vodka]

Pag evolution ang pinag uusapan dapat sabihin mo Sicientific fact and theory.

Yes I belive that evolution happend and yes the theory of natural selection is garbage.

Satisfied now?

it's evolution through natural selection. natural selection is the mechanism which allows for evolution to take place and it's very easy to understand and more importantly it's actually observable in real-time even within the limits of human attention spans

suppose you have beetles. some of them brown. some green.

if their environment is brown, that gives the browns some camo. the greens get eaten by birds

the reverse happens for green environments

so then the browns reproduce. the greens don't coz they're dead

[niky]

Pag evolution ang pinag uusapan dapat sabihin mo Sicientific fact and theory.

Yes I belive that evolution happend and yes the theory of natural selection is garbage.

Satisfied now?

Not really. Why is "Natural selection" garbage?

Note that Natural Selection does not prescribe "Survival of the Fittest" in the sense that the strongest, most intelligent and quickest animals are the ones that naturally produce offspring (this is what Social Darwinists get wrong). All it states is that the animals that are better at surviving until reproductive age (and which have more offspring that survive till reproductive age) are more likely to prosper.

Thus... you can have super-rabbits who are faster than a speeding bullet and capable of eating wolves, but if this comes at the expense of lower fertility rates and higher infant mortality, they're not going to beat out regular rabbits that are soft, cuddly, easy to kill but which multiply like... well... rabbits.

[magicsarap]

LOL. typical and expected response from typical pinoys

just FYI coz there are also lots of "typical" pinoys here on tsikot if you know what i mean . humans didn't evolve from present-day monkeys! but we did evolve from a COMMON ANCESTOR. so chimps branched off another way. they're our COUSINS so to speak.

i'm not here to spoon-feed the ignorant so please just look it up. it's a scientific fact. no debate. no controversy

Theres no proof to that. It seems you pick the story from the wrong garbage can. Based on your so called theory (or made up story) would you believe that you evolve from the fungus of a Nyasasaurus parringtoni's cuticle?

I think so...

[Vodka]

Theres no proof to that. It seems you pick the story from the wrong garbage can. Based on your so called theory (or made up story) would you believe that you evolve from the fungus of a Nyasasaurus parringtoni's cuticle?

I think so...

it's really a waste of internet bandwidth and your time to have typed up that amateurish response when you could've used said resources to EDUCATE yourself instead

it's 2016 there's no excuse to be an ignorant tool anymore

[Vodka]

What the heck is happening?

wanna know what's happening? we have allowed for too long the CHURCH to have a stranglehold on the minds of the filipino people. that's why most pinoys are bigoted (hindi meron bigote), narrow-minded, anti-intellectual (e.g. nosebleed yan!), have a "bahala na si lord" attitude. PH may suck but in heaven you'll be rewarded!

time to stop this nonsense. wake up folks PH is lagging in all areas

[yebo]

mas madaming tang*ng pinoy kesa sa nagiisip. the wise and knowledgeable are in the minority. kahit nga college degree holder na ang daling utuin e. and the root cause, imho, is katamaran. tamad magbasa ng libro, tamad magaral, tamad mag-research sa internet, etc. etc. kaya naman pag sinabihan ng pari o pastor napapasunod agad, napakalaking authority na sa kanila yung "alagad ng diyos".

sad to say Jose Rizal was wrong. filipinos are indeed "indolent".

[niky]

I don't think it's limited to Pinoys... they have the same problem everywhere.

Plus... online... which means you pretty much throw everything out the window... some of those people reacting are trolls with too much time on their hands.

Of course, the even scarier idea is that these people are serious...

[machine.pistol]

This reminds me of the Scopes (Monkey) Trial in the US in the 1920s where Mr. Scopes was charged with violating state law that prohibited the teaching of the theory of evolution in public schools. Mr. Scopes' defense attorney was the famous Clarence Darrow, while the prosecution was represented by the equally famous William Jennings Bryan. The prosecution argued that the law violated the Biblical teaching on creation. While Scopes was convicted, his conviction was reversed by the appeals court. The state law was eventually repealed.

Watch the movie "Inherit The Wind." It's interesting.

[Juan Martinez]

This reminds me of the Scopes (Monkey) Trial in the US in the 1920s where Mr. Scopes was charged with violating state law that prohibited the teaching of the theory of evolution in public schools. Mr. Scopes' defense attorney was the famous Clarence Darrow, while the prosecution was represented by the equally famous William Jennings Bryan. The prosecution argued that the law violated the Biblical teaching on creation. While Scopes was convicted, his conviction was reversed by the appeals court. The state law was eventually repealed.

Watch the movie "Inherit The Wind." It's interesting.

the cross-examination of clarence darrow was brilliant. i still have the transcript (not the original, of course).

[jut703]

I was 14 when the concept of evolution was discussed in detail back in high school, yet my classmates and I were able to get it into our heads. So I'm surprised that things like natural selection are still being argued about by adults - it's not an equal debate where both sides could be true. There is a multitude of evidence explaining natural selection - to say that it doesn't exist (for both micro and macroevolution) is to undermine the efforts of thousands of scientists over the past several hundred years.

Natural selection is one process (though not the only process) that facilitates evolution. It has already been discussed in this thread how it leads to the proliferation of better-adapted individuals (like Niky's low-maintenance but prolific bunnies) over poorly-adapted individuals (like the super strong but high-maintenance and un-horny bunnies). Over time this changes the traits of that particular species. By time, this could mean several million years. This is microevolution in a nutshell.

Macroevolution, or the emergence of a new species, follows the same concept but on a larger scale (in terms of both morphology and time). Over hundreds of millions of years, the environment changes, and animals adapt to these changes.

Because the Earth has moved away from its primordial soup origins and has allowed life on land possible, water-borne species slowly evolved and land-based species emerged. It's not to say that the species thriving in the aquatic environment died out - they continued to exist as long as they were suited to the environment. But again, over millions of years, the Earth's progression shifted and the species that were no longer suited (and have not adapted) slowly died out.

Sent from my SM-N910C using Tapatalk