What Exactly Are the Common Characteristics Between Humans and Bananas?

I wasn't really kidding..50% isn't all that close. And apparently having the same genes is different than having the same DNA. I'd need a minute to digest that one. So....

Chimpanzees are 96% to 98% similar to humans, depending on how it is calculated and what kind of chimp. We all know This is a pretty big debate between you-know-who and you-know-who. genome.wellcome.ac.uk...

Cats have 90% of the same genes as humans (cats are also at 82% dogs, 80% cows, 79% chimps, 69% rats, and 67% to mice) genome.cshlp.org...

Fruit flies and humans share about 60% DNA www.genome.gov...

About 60% of chicken genes correspond to human genes www.sciencedaily.com...

Cows are at 80% genetically the same as humans www.sciencemag.org...

Mice and humans have genes that are 75% equivalent www.plosbiology.org...:doi/10.1371/journal.pbio.1000112 and www.genome.gov...


Check out Homologene

But of course, none of these grown on trees.

GetHyped

WarminIndy

Bastion, this is what they are teaching children. So how exactly am I supposed to think about the statement. Common characteristics means...something in common that is phenotypically observed.

Then you misunderstand the science of genetics. 50% shared DNA doesn't equate to a banana having 1 arm, 1 leg, half a peel, 1 lung, half a stalk and some other mish-mash of physical appearances.

edit on 26-3-2014 by GetHyped because: (no reason given)

The science of genetics means something either is phenotypically observed or something genotypically observed. Very generalized. I want to know what exactly are the common characteristics.

Either way it has to be observed and proven by experiments, even by geneticists. And can someone direct me to a peer-reviewed article on those experiments?

~Lucidity
I wasn't really kidding..50% isn't all that close. And apparently having the same genes is different than having the same DNA. I'd need a minute to digest that one. So....

Chimpanzees are 96% to 98% similar to humans, depending on how it is calculated and what kind of chimp. We all know This is a pretty big debate between you-know-who and you-know-who. genome.wellcome.ac.uk...

Cats have 90% of the same genes as humans (cats are also at 82% dogs, 80% cows, 79% chimps, 69% rats, and 67% to mice) genome.cshlp.org...

Fruit flies and humans share about 60% DNA www.genome.gov...

About 60% of chicken genes correspond to human genes www.sciencedaily.com...

Cows are at 80% genetically the same as humans www.sciencemag.org...

Mice and humans have genes that are 75% equivalent www.plosbiology.org...:doi/10.1371/journal.pbio.1000112 and www.genome.gov...


Check out Homologene

But of course, none of these grown on trees.

OK, so cows are too close so no eating of cows? Chickens are further but cats are closer. Is this almost cannibalism, so eating a banana is only half-cannibalistic?

I am not a banana, I AM A MAN!

WarminIndy

GetHyped

WarminIndy

Bastion, this is what they are teaching children. So how exactly am I supposed to think about the statement. Common characteristics means...something in common that is phenotypically observed.

Then you misunderstand the science of genetics. 50% shared DNA doesn't equate to a banana having 1 arm, 1 leg, half a peel, 1 lung, half a stalk and some other mish-mash of physical appearances.

edit on 26-3-2014 by GetHyped because: (no reason given)

The science of genetics means something either is phenotypically observed or something genotypically observed. Very generalized. I want to know what exactly are the common characteristics.

Either way it has to be observed and proven by experiments, even by geneticists. And can someone direct me to a peer-reviewed article on those experiments?

While it is a fact that humans and bananas share 50% of the genome, that doesn't mean "relatedness". You seem to be stuck on relation and can't wipe that image out of your head or are intentionally being obtuse because you think you are making a clever philosophical point.

The truth is that humans and bananas share the same basic genes for respiration, transcription, translation, signalling cascades, transcriptional regulation, protein degradation, and sexual reproduction . . . as well as, quite a few others. That is how we share 50% of our genes with bananas.

Genetic similarity does not equate to relatedness or complexity.

Humans may be functionally more complex, but the genes that regulate those functions are the same. Well, at least 50%.

Here is a link to the geneticist responsible for those mappings . . .
Steve Jones

solomons path

WarminIndy

GetHyped

WarminIndy

Bastion, this is what they are teaching children. So how exactly am I supposed to think about the statement. Common characteristics means...something in common that is phenotypically observed.

Then you misunderstand the science of genetics. 50% shared DNA doesn't equate to a banana having 1 arm, 1 leg, half a peel, 1 lung, half a stalk and some other mish-mash of physical appearances.

edit on 26-3-2014 by GetHyped because: (no reason given)

The science of genetics means something either is phenotypically observed or something genotypically observed. Very generalized. I want to know what exactly are the common characteristics.

Either way it has to be observed and proven by experiments, even by geneticists. And can someone direct me to a peer-reviewed article on those experiments?

While it is a fact that humans and bananas share 50% of the genome, that doesn't mean "relatedness". You seem to be stuck on relation and can't wipe that image out of your head or are intentionally being obtuse because you think you are making a clever philosophical point.

The truth is that humans and bananas share the same basic genes for respiration, transcription, translation, signalling cascades, transcriptional regulation, protein degradation, and sexual reproduction . . . as well as, quite a few others. That is how we share 50% of our genes with bananas.

Genetic similarity does not equate to relatedness or complexity.

Humans may be functionally more complex, but the genes that regulate those functions are the same. Well, at least 50%.

Here is a link to the geneticist responsible for those mappings . . .
Steve Jones

Certainly I am not being obtuse.

Share same basic genes? Or could it be that we both have gene processes, not that we share genes and therefore are similar. But you didn't read the article of which I quoted from the Natural Museum of History.

As per the statement by "we share a common ancestor". So because we have similar gene processes means that we have a common ancestor?

Here is your Stephen Jones

I do know a lot about snail genetics. It's my narrow, limited, unintellectual kind of field. In many ways, though, it's a microcosm of evolutionary biology at its worst. Its literature is filled with the great vaguenesses of evolution — with words that, when you deconstruct them, are like shoveling fog; they don't mean much. "Coadaptation," "adaptive landscape," "punctuated equilibrium" — what I sometimes think of as theological population genetics. They're words that don't help at all when you're trying to decide what experiment to do next.

The very words bandied around from evolutionist even on ATS are vague and have no real meaning.

And he goes on to say

Words like these reflect the view that somehow one gene is there because it has adapted to the other genes that were there already. That the world somehow is a beautifully harmonious structure is an optimist's point of view: everything fits beautifully together, and if you see the whole edifice you don't have to worry about how it's constructed, it just stands up.

That's a pernicious idea. It's an anti-intellectual, working-out-God's-plan, know-nothing kind of idea. In what must have been a moment of extreme tedium, I once read a book by a South African general, Jan Smuts, called Holism. Smuts was a strange, interesting guy, who dabbled in philosophy. Everything you saw in the world was all part of a great scheme, and there was no point in trying to work out what individual parts of the scheme were for, because it made sense only when you saw it as a whole. He was a rather weak philosopher. But his idea pervades a lot of biological thinking. Evolution is a magical thing, with an intrinsic beauty of its own, which you can't hope to break down into the individual genes that make it happen. In other words, there's a limit to reductionism.

I am sorry, but your own scientist says that evolution is a magical thing. Moving on.

WarminIndy

The very words bandied around from evolutionist even on ATS are vague and have no real meaning.

He's talking about the state of the literature surrounding snail evolution, hardly a buzzing field of study. Not sure how you managed to extrapolate that to mean he is implying that evolution and its terminology is "vague and has no real meaning".

Actually, I do, as it would appear that reading comprehension is not your strong point because...

I am sorry, but your own scientist says that evolution is a magical thing. Moving on.

...this is a perfect example of someone who is either deliberately being obtuse or is of limited intellect.

You've shown your true colors, just another ignorant creationist making clumsy and uninformed attacks about a scientific field of study they know very little about.

GetHyped

WarminIndy

The very words bandied around from evolutionist even on ATS are vague and have no real meaning.

He's talking about the state of the literature surrounding snail evolution, hardly a buzzing field of study. Not sure how you managed to extrapolate that to mean he is implying that evolution and its terminology is "vague and has no real meaning".

Actually, I do, as it would appear that reading comprehension is not your strong point because...

I am sorry, but your own scientist says that evolution is a magical thing. Moving on.

...this is a perfect example of someone who is either deliberately being obtuse or is of limited intellect.

You've shown your true colors, just another ignorant creationist making clumsy and uninformed attacks about a scientific field of study they know very little about.

edit on 26-3-2014 by GetHyped because: (no reason given)

He didn't say "evolution literature about snails is a magical thing", he said "EVOLUTION is a magical thing". My reading comprehension is quite fine. It is you who gloss over those statements and try to turn it to, "oh, he was talking about literature". Yes, he was talking about literature, except his DIRECT quote is "EVOLUTION is a magical thing".

There was an end stop of the previous sentence. That means the sentence about evolution is independent of the previous sentence. Moving on. End stop.

(The words speak for themselves. He used proper grammar and syntax to make his point).

BTW, what is your expertise in snail biology?

HUMBLEONE
I am not a banana, I AM A MAN!

Meh, Very little difference.........

windword

HUMBLEONE
I am not a banana, I AM A MAN!

Meh, Very little difference.........

Oranges aren't the only fruit......lol.

WarminIndy

windword

HUMBLEONE
I am not a banana, I AM A MAN!

Meh, Very little difference.........

Oranges aren't the only fruit......lol.

Orange you glad about that! Heh heh.....

reply to post by WarminIndy


Now that you're quote mining, I know you're just being obtuse. An idiot would read that sentence straightforwardly and recognize that as an idiom.

If we change that to:
The sunset is a magical thing, with an intrinsic beauty of it's own, which you can't hope to breakdown into the individual processes that make it happen.

That means sunsets are magic?

You're reading comprehension is poor and your attempt at antiscience propaganda poorer still.

Oh.....okay, I will say it.

We are similar to All living creatures, to an extent, because we were Created.
The same building blocks/language (DNA) was used to Create every living thing.
Because of this, we are all a little Banana(s) in a way.

Flame away
Quad

solomons path
reply to post by WarminIndy

 

Now that you're quote mining, I know you're just being obtuse. An idiot would read that sentence straightforwardly and recognize that as an idiom.

If we change that to:
The sunset is a magical thing, with an intrinsic beauty of it's own, which you can't hope to breakdown into the individual processes that make it happen.

That means sunsets are magic?

You're reading comprehension is poor and your attempt at antiscience propaganda poorer still.

I don't know, if we say "God said "let there be a great light to rule the day", you would say we believe in magic, because there's no real guy up there floating on the clouds, visible or otherwise, then you say we suffer from magical thinking. So which is it, faith in science because it is an idiom, but for the rest, it's magical thinking?

Opinion bully, which is the same status as the other username, are you trying to opinion bully me?

You can't apply magical thinking to one side and then simply say it's an idiom for the other. Science must be magic, because a lot use sleight of hand (or tongue). Scientists come up with a lot of explanations, except for the basic questions: What was before the Big Bang? What is the common ancestor of humans and bananas? What exactly are the common characteristics?

Sleight of hand, stack the deck, find the ball under the shell "Oh, there it is" and Full Monty us all. Is evolution magic? Yes, it is.

Say a few words that sound scientific, show them from your side to your side and then you say Creationists are the ones with magical thinking. Those words your side bandies around, your own side says they mean nothing. Yes,the magic is in convincing people that the words mean something when they don't. That's your side talking.

So now, can you tell me, realistically, what is the common ancestor of humans and bananas? The single celled organism from the abiogenesis primordial soup that has never been proven to have ever existed, but only in theory?

Here's where the sleight of hand and magical thinking comes from

Primordial Soup Theory

Life on Earth first bloomed around 3.7 billion years ago, when chemical compounds in a "primordial soup" somehow sparked into life, scientists suspect. But what turned sterile molecules into living, changing organisms? That's the ultimate mystery.

I'm sorry, but unless your side proves conclusively and stops "suggesting", then really your side needs to stop harassing, when your side still faces mysteries. To suggest that it is true without proof, sleight of hand, magical thinking. Your scientist was correct, evolution is magic. Scientists SUSPECT, that's not proof of anything, just more magic.

Quadrivium
Oh.....okay, I will say it.

We are similar to All living creatures, to an extent, because we were Created.
The same building blocks/language (DNA) was used to Create every living thing.
Because of this, we are all a little Banana(s) in a way.

Flame away

Quad

I wanted someone to tell me what those common characteristics were, but the evolutionist on board informed me that bananas have life and die and convert proteins, so then we all must be bananas.

Everything on this planet, the air, the rocks, trees, bananas, humans, plastic bags, plutonium, fruit flies, fire, etc, we are all made up from the same group of elements and we are all related to each other somehow.

If everything that we encounter is "alive" except for the rocks and the gasses and liquids the fill the landscape, then could they be "alive" somehow as well?

Until we made a microscope we couldn't "see" micro life and would never really know that that dish of water that has been sitting out for a week is teaming with "life".

What if rocks and fire and clouds are "alive"? Even if the clouds' life span is fleeting, like a fruit fly...

Seems like life is everywhere and we are all made up of parts of this earth.

FinalCountdown
Everything on this planet, the air, the rocks, trees, bananas, humans, plastic bags, plutonium, fruit flies, fire, etc, we are all made up from the same group of elements and we are all related to each other somehow.

If everything that we encounter is "alive" except for the rocks and the gasses and liquids the fill the landscape, then could they be "alive" somehow as well?

Until we made a microscope we couldn't "see" micro life and would never really know that that dish of water that has been sitting out for a week is teaming with "life".

What if rocks and fire and clouds are "alive"? Even if the clouds' life span is fleeting, like a fruit fly...

Seems like life is everywhere and we are all made up of parts of this earth.

edit on 26-3-2014 by FinalCountdown because: (no reason given)

Who says rocks are not alive? Didn't they form and self-replicate while they were still molten? Oh, they don't breathe, just like bananas don't. They are made of carbon, we are made of carbon, this whole planet is carbon based. The aliens though, they are silicone based from what I hear. But since everything is carbon, then we must come from where carbon comes from, so our common ancestor must be carbon.

And how can the Bible be wrong when it says "man was created from the dust of the earth"? Isn't that carbon as well?

Humans descend from the planet, that much is true. Creationists believe that and Evolutionists believe that. So that's it, carbon is our common ancestor.

reply to post by WarminIndy


Wow. It's been quite a long time since I've witnessed an asinine argument of such massive proportions as yours.

...and that's saying something.

Is the subject of creationism or intelligent design so utterly defeated that this is the level you are willing to stoop to in attempt to refute the scientific basis of evolution? That's just sad. Allow me to clue you in on something so that perhaps you'll leave this foolishness alone and walk away with some shred of dignity intact. Consider it an act of a Good Samaritan.

You cannot mix scientific theory with philosophical notions of theology, faith and personal belief systems. There is simply no basis for comparison, as creationism and ID cannot be scientifically tested. It is an impossible task that no amount of faith can possibly overcome, despite one's desire to do so.

Being purposely obtuse, as evidenced by your thread, does you and the argument you are trying to make much discredit. Surely, there are other theological avenues that you could persue that would be much more beneficial. Perhaps the noble goal of achieving world peace through acts of empathy and compassion, for instance.

In short, leave bananas to your morning bowl of cereal - or, better yet, ice cream.

water!

banana - 75% water
humans - 57%/67% water

there you go.

50 %

water is god and god is water.

be water.

reply to post by Fuzzy Wabbit

Wow. It's been quite a long time since I've witnessed an asinine argument of such massive proportions as yours.

Perhaps you missed this!