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

[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.

[yebo]

the biggest evidence of natural selection is your wife and you. if you are deformed, obviously infirmed, not capable of producing healthy (and even good looking) offsprings, not capable of ensuring the survival of your brood, then you would not have decided to become mates.

same with animals. that is why mountain goats butt heads, birds preen their feathers, crocodiles bristle their backs and the strongest lions and silver back gorillas become alpha males. the strongest and the good looking win mates, the weak and unattractive do not reproduce.

the unattractive make do but look at the product - mostly dumb and weak who do not go up the food chain very far. si binay lang umasenso e, may kakampi kasing demonyo.

[ClaNker]

And the reptile became a bird by natural selection... It's like listening to a bible creationist interpreting the 6 days event in the Book of Genesis literally and refuses to interpret the Book of Revelation the same way.

Natural Selection for the survival of the species? Yes
Natural Selection to create a new specie? Good luck proving that.