What Exactly Are the Common Characteristics Between Humans and Bananas?

stumason
reply to post by WarminIndy

 

You're getting all mixed up - Yes, it is very likely that Modern Humans came out of Africa - that is the general consensus. But what has that got to do with the common ancestor for Humans and Bananas?

I also never said they came from Pangea, I just used that as an example of how far back we have to go and even said, it was most likely Pangea itself didn't exist. I also said "about" 1.5 Billion because you cannot be exact down to the day of the week. The figure currently being bandied about is 1.576 billion years ago +/- 88 million years.

It isn't a matter of "belief" for me, I am an intelligent person and other intelligent people have done a lot of work and present a lot of evidence to support what they say. That evidence makes sense and fits well with other evidence and other theories.

I apologise if I didn't make myself clear, I realise a low IQ can hamper your reading comprehension.

"God did it" has zero evidence and even contradicts itself, much less corroborate anything else.

Yes, I know, consensus means everything, even if the consensus is wrong, it must still be believed.

You say you are intelligent, but the words I read and hear from your side, from what your scientists are saying "suppose" "suggest", "assume" means that they can't agree either and aren't sure themselves. And this you have faith in.

A lot of intelligent scientists on both sides, but you only listen to one side. Good for you being rational and logical and intelligent and weighing out every bit of "evidence" presented by all sides. Real science doesn't do that, real science says "screw the consensus, here's what I think".

So, all of your arguments are based in as Stephen Jones says "shoveling fog". Because the words used, have no real meaning. That guy is on YOUR side. I'm not responsible for assuring the credibility for what your scientists say, you are.

From his contribution to the book The Third Culture
Now remember, this is the guy I was directed to as the source of banana mapping. So he must be a credible source to you guys.

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.

Ok, he knows about snails. But these words, coadaptation, adaptive landscape, punctuated equilibrium, don't meant much.

Remember, I was directed to this guy from you guys. If he's your credible source, then you wouldn't mind thinking about what the source is saying, right?

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.

Your guy is saying that you have an optimist's view. That's not real science either.

That's a pernicious idea. It's an anti-intellectual, working-out-God's-plan, know-nothing kind of idea.

Your guy is saying that it's anti-intellectual. That's what your side accuses us of doing, and yet your source says that about you.

Science is data-led, not theory-led

What exactly is abiogenesis? A theory. What exactly is evolution? A theory. What is exactly determining the age of the earth and human development? Theories. Out of Africa? Theory.

Although I write a lot about it, I've never done any serious work of my own in human genetics, so I'm a spectator of the subject rather than a participant

What is the banana/human connection? Theory.

windword
Move over bananas! Make room for Uncle Mushroom!

Why are mushrooms more like humans than they are like plants?

But how do we know that that commmon ancestor budded out plants and fungi so far apart that the fungi are closer to us than to plants? We take a look at genetic similarity, and how that kicks over into physiology. There was a marked lack of chlorophyll in the near history of both animals and fungi. We both took a step away from photosynthesis before we started becoming what we are. Fungal cell walls are made of chitin, the same thing that makes up insect's outer carapaces, but is found nowhere in the plant world. Fungal proteins look more like animal than plant proteins. And then there are sterols - important alcohol groups that play a part in everything from biological messenger systems to cell walls

Just be careful which one you eat.

reply to post by WarminIndy


Evidently, it is pointless debating with you for the simple reason you do not understand what a "Theory" is. If you cannot get that most basic of premises through your skull, nothing else is going to get in and it is just a waste of my time trying to get you to learn a word. I spend enough time with my 3 year old doing that and it has to be said, he has a better time of it.

Enjoy wallowing in ignorance

stumason
reply to post by WarminIndy

 

Evidently, it is pointless debating with you for the simple reason you do not understand what a "Theory" is. If you cannot get that most basic of premises through your skull, nothing else is going to get in and it is just a waste of my time trying to get you to learn a word. I spend enough time with my 3 year old doing that and it has to be said, he has a better time of it.

Enjoy wallowing in ignorance

NO, upperntly me so stooopeeed that me read nutting and nos nutteeeng.

Yes, I agree it has been a waste of time with you also.

But this is ATS and a forum called Origins and Creationism, and anyone can make a thread and expect to put up with such nonsense. But you go ahead, your 3 year-old child needs your attention more than threads on ATS.

And you weren't debating, what you were doing was looking for another Creationist that you could argue with. If you don't have the answers, just say you don't have the answers. What is so hard about saying you don't know?

I didn't ask for debate, I asked a question, it was in the title. If you can't answer, then all it comes down to is your opinion. Now it is lunch time, take your child and get it a Happy Meal and be happy the rest of the day. Thank you for your time. I understand and am cool with you not having the answer. BTW, just saying evolution did it is not an answer. You need actual data in your "debate'.

reply to post by WarminIndy


Nope, I thought you wanted the question answering, but it appears you have an agenda based on ill-thought out concepts and poor understanding.

I and others have answered your question - it's your problem if that answer doesn't jive with you. I suspect you were hoping you'd catch us all out with some "clever" question with regards to banana's, not so. And no one said "evolution did it" - although it did.

Again, in case you missed it - the common ancestor for Human's and banana's would be a single celled organism before the divergence of plant's, animals and fungi around 1.5 Billion years ago and even before anything made landfall. This is borne out from genetic studies by the worlds best in their field - a plethora of peer reviewed papers on the subject are available if you care to look - as well as what details can be gleaned from fossil records of microbial life.

The commonality will be in the basic structures of the cells and how they operate, which is what the 50% of the genes control. The other 50% covers all the things that are different between the Banana plant and Humans.

It's not that I don't know - I do - it's just that you don't understand or wish to understand. I cannot make it any simpler than I have and if you want details, the best way to learn is educate yourself, because quite frankly you don't want to believe anyone else anyway, so the only person you can trust is yourself.

There you go, question answered. Now, if you go off on a tangent about Humans coming from Africa and Banana's from Asia again, then you either don't want to learn or are incapable of learning.

Oh, by the way, my 3 year old is fine. He's at home with his mother and I'm at work, so don't fret about me wasting time on ATS, it's on company time and I'm getting paid for it

EDIT: My point about the word theory stands, by the way. I interjected early to try and make sure we didn't go down and that road and immediately, in the next post, you bring it up. It just highlights how little you understand of a topic you wish to argue about.

WarminIndy

I didn't ask for debate, I asked a question, it was in the title. If you can't answer, then all it comes down to is your opinion. Now it is lunch time, take your child and get it a Happy Meal and be happy the rest of the day. Thank you for your time. I understand and am cool with you not having the answer. BTW, just saying evolution did it is not an answer. You need actual data in your "debate'.

There's no such thing as a stupid question but I make the exception in this instance because your question was nothing more than a dismal attempt at a Trojan horse to try stump people who accept the overwhelming body of evidence for evolution. I think you expected us to go "Wow, you're really got us there, such shrewd intellectual insight. Evolution must be wrong, praise Jeebus!". But, as with every creationist, all you've done is proven your own willful ignorance of the theory of evolution and your utter failure to comprehend even the most basic principles and concepts you attempt to attack, even after they've been explained to you in detail many times over.

"Debating creationists on the topic of evolution is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon — it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory."

Off you fly, my feathered friend.

WarminIndy
Hmm, since there are skeletons of humans pre-banana in Africa, because bananas were brought to Africa in 327 BC, then I just don't see how humans and bananas can be much related, unless humans came out of Asia instead of Africa. And since very old skeletons were found in Africa, then I wonder how this could fit the timeline.

Perhaps you can answer this one for me. Is it Out of Africa or Out of Asia?

It's obviously neither. You're deliberately confusing the two to make it appear you have a point, however all you're achieving is reinforcing the view creationists are absolutely clueless.

The 'out of Africa theory' is specific to modern humans. Plants and animals separated billions of years before that. There's no contradiction in the timeline unless you misinterpret every single piece of data.

stumason
reply to post by demus

 

Before we go down this road of "Evolution is only a Theory", let's just make it quite clear it is a Scientific Theory":

Scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. If enough evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, it moves to the next step—known as a theory—in the scientific method and becomes accepted as a valid explanation of a phenomenon.

When used in non-scientific context, the word “theory” implies that something is unproven or speculative. As used in science, however, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena.

Any scientific theory must be based on a careful and rational examination of the facts. In the scientific method, there is a clear distinction between facts, which can be observed and/or measured, and theories, which are scientists’ explanations and interpretations of the facts. Scientists can have various interpretations of the outcomes of experiments and observations, but the facts, which are the cornerstone of the scientific method, do not change.

Link

Which is a world away from just an "idea" which a normal theory would be.

edit on 27/3/14 by stumason because: (no reason given)

that is exactly why I have mentioned that evolution is a scientific theory in my original post.

reply to post by demus


It wasn't aimed at you, sorry if it looked that way, but I had been trying to avoid using the word "theory" precisely because they latch on to it and do what we know they do, so when you brought it up I thought I'd better leap in there and make sure there is no equivocation about what it means.. Seems that was in vain though as it was promptly ignored.

reply to post by WarminIndy


Is this you Raymond, with a new twist on the banana fallacy? If so... I love you Ray, you give me some good laughs.

stumason
reply to post by demus

 

It wasn't aimed at you, sorry if it looked that way, but I had been trying to avoid using the word "theory" precisely because they latch on to it and do what we know they do, so when you brought it up I thought I'd better leap in there and make sure there is no equivocation about what it means.. Seems that was in vain though as it was promptly ignored.

yes, I agree, people should read more books.

anyway, researchers from the Center for Human Genetics and Banana Issues believe they have found missing link that may explain strange coincidences between behavior of average human and banana fruit.
based on years of research they managed to compile following model:
behold -

flyingfish
reply to post by WarminIndy

 

Is this you Raymond, with a new twist on the banana fallacy? If so... I love you Ray, you give me some good laughs.

Proving once again that you simply don't invest enough research into anything. So you take pleasure in beating up this Ray fellow? Wow, and I thought you guys were open minded and liberal and against all that bullying. But I see you aren't.

Don't worry about who I am.

reply to post by WarminIndy


How is that "proof" of such a thing?

If anyone has displayed an inability to research and understand, it is you. You can't even wrap your head around what a theory is in Science....

EDIT: Also, I don't believe anyone here was saying they were "liberal and open minded" - that may be the case, but it isn't a pre-requisite for grasping basic science.

stumason
reply to post by WarminIndy

 

How is that "proof" of such a thing?

If anyone has displayed an inability to research and understand, it is you. You can't even wrap your head around what a theory is in Science....

EDIT: Also, I don't believe anyone here was saying they were "liberal and open minded" - that may be the case, but it isn't a pre-requisite for grasping basic science.

edit on 27/3/14 by stumason because: (no reason given)

Oh the old anti-theist "I trust science so I'm open minded compared to those theists". You know, that old mentality.

But I digress, the question remains unanswered. When a person asks a question, you should be able to say "Here it is" and give the specifics or you don't know and say "I don't know the particulars, but as an open minded person, I'll find the answers". But no, same parroted responses from your side.

The Song Remains The Same.

reply to post by WarminIndy


The answers have been given - it is you choosing to ignore them, which is typical - what exactly is it you want?

reply to post by WarminIndy


You do realise that the human and banana genome have both been sequenced?

reply to post by WarminIndy

Proving once again that you simply don't invest enough research into anything.

LOL.. that's rich coming from the person that created this thread.
I can assure you I've invested enough researched in your banana fallacy to know you're not interested in anything to do with real scientific research. I'm here strictly for laughs.

So you take pleasure in beating up this Ray fellow?

Yes.

Wow, and I thought you guys were open minded and liberal and against all that bullying. But I see you aren't.

You got one thing right, I'm not a liberal. It's not bullying if you continue assert things that have already been refuted.
At this point in the game, willful ignorance can only be met with ridicule and contempt.

Don't worry about who I am.

I'm not worried, I was just asking. If you are Ray don't be ashamed, it's okay to be you.

Maxatoria
They are probably the most basic things like chemical processes to convert things from one form to another mainly

Bingo. This is exactly my line of thinking.

ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

Maxatoria
They are probably the most basic things like chemical processes to convert things from one form to another mainly

Bingo. This is exactly my line of thinking.

The line you agree with is

They are probably the most basic things like chemical processes to convert things from one form to another mainly

You agree with PROBABLY but it could also be NOT PROBABLY as well.

But your consensus is PROBABLY without investigation? And you say you are scientific minded. Go look and see it it is probably that, then come back and tell us if it is.

By the way, Jones said it in The Single Helix and none of you even mentioned that. So, you didn't even know where the claim originated.

Therefore, as you guys say, extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence. Read the book then come back and tell us what it says, does it say PROBABLY the basic things like chemical processes?

Who here has read The Single Helix?