Bro Eli Soriano said, as far as I can remember, that evolutionary process as form of natural adaptation has diversified skin colors from a single Adamic complexion, to varieties of human complexion and one of such were through long-term sun exposure.
Song of Solomon 1:6
Look not upon me, because I am black, because the sun hath looked upon me: my mother’s children were angry with me; they made me the keeper of the vineyards; but mine own vineyard have I not kept.
Bro Eli gave an example, the people in Cainta, Rizal as a result of such process. Implying the natives and not the sepoy descendants!
He said, many in Cainta were dark bec of sun exposure. He did not intend to mean the sepoy descendants.
He said, Cainta has a larger population in terms of dark-skinned citizens than those that are not. He did not intend to mean all these dark-skinned were product of sun exposure. Logically, among these who are dark were the product of the evolutionary adaptation from long-term sun exposure.
Sepoy descendants: (Wikipedia)
Bro Eli implied, there were dark-skinned people in Cainta that were a product of long-term exposure to the sun. It doesn’t imply that all dark-skinned people in Cainta are sepoy descendants bec of the reality that Filipinos has naturally dark-skinned natives such as aetas as an ethnic skin variety. It could also be possible bec Philippines is rich in skin-color diversity that Cainta has it too dark-skinned natives (though not aetas) which are not necessarily Sepoy descendants. These are what Bro Eli said as products of long-term sun exposure–the dark people who are not sepoys!
The question is: is it proven that dark-skinned citizens of Cainta outside the sepoys are a product of sun-exposure?
Who knows? But Bro Eli did not confirmed anything as factual. He could have emphasized the reality that dark-complexion are a probable result of the sun-exposure adaptation, and that he was not actually confirming a fact.
It could be. Who knows really what he intend to mean?
He said: Mga taga-Cainta! Medyo nasusunog ng araw yon eh! Punta ka ng Cainta ano!? Di ba, talaga ho (its true or really)…!
When Bro Eli said, “The sun blackened them, Go to Cainta and see, its true!” Did he mean, its true the sun blackened them or its true there are dark people in Cainta?
If he meant it as, its true the sun blackened them, then he was affirming a fact which fact is yet to be revealed, as he did not yet reveal. If he meant as, its true there are dark people in Cainta, he has not affirmed any factuality that Cainta dark people were through sun-exposure. He only confirmed that there are dark people in Cainta which some were possible product of sun-exposure.
Its actually ambiguous. It could be understood in many ways. Who knows? Only Bro Eli could verify what he really meant. Taking it at face value, regardless of the ambiguity, it is assessible as a vague statement. Nowhere did the statement clearly emphasized bro eli as saying, the dark people in Cainta as product of sun-exposure is a fact. He could mean it as a probability only.
Mga taga-Cainta! Medyo nasusunog ng araw yon eh! (As a fact or probability?) Punta ka ng Cainta ano!? Di ba, talaga ho (its true or really)…! (About sun darkening Cainta’s skin color or about the reality of dark people in Cainta?)
If he meant it as fact if so, that it is unverified, then so what!? Maliit na bagay! But what if he could prove it? What if he could prove that sun-exposure caused Cainta’s dark skin–referring to dark people who are not sepoys–?
Then, the reality goes for detractors…
IGNORANCE OF FACT IS NOT EVIDENCE FOR BELIEVING FICTION
The fact is, Bro Eli did not say that all dark people in Cainta including the Sepoys are the result of long-term sun exposure. He could have meant those dark people who are dark not by sepoy ancestry but natives who are dark through Cainta sun-exposure adaptation.
Yet nowhere did he certify a fact, bec he could have meant it as probability.
Detractors, wise men don’t jump to conclusions!