What Exactly Are the Common Characteristics Between Humans and Bananas?

reply to post by WarminIndy


Oh Jeebus..... Only going back 2 thousand or so years won't lead you to a common ancestor for Man and Banana. Even 10 thousand years, or even 100,000.

My face hurts from all the palm-slaps...

stumason
...bendy thing people like to make penis jokes out of, but the whole plant. The banana is just the berry of the Banana bush.

Hehehe. You said penis and bush. Hehehe.

Fire. Fire.

reply to post by AugustusMasonicus


If only a Banana were a "cherry" instead of a berry and we'd have a hat trick

reply to post by stumason


Here, so you stop hurting yourself:

Krazysh0t
Here, so you stop hurting yourself:

Did you notice that the 'fail meme' misspelled 'completely'?

reply to post by AugustusMasonicus


No, damn... I need a fourth facepalm.

stumason
reply to post by WarminIndy

 

Oh Jeebus..... Only going back 2 thousand or so years won't lead you to a common ancestor for Man and Banana. Even 10 thousand years, or even 100,000.

My face hurts from all the palm-slaps...

Did you even read the quote posted? Shall I repost it?

You have to go back in time a long way to find a common ancestor between humans and bananas, but ultimately they have both emerged from the same family tree, the tree of life, and that is why they share common characteristics.

Yes, I get that idea that it was a long time ago. However, the song remains the same. Bananas came from South Asia. The ancestor of bananas was in South Asia.

For there to be a common ancestor, it needs to arise from the same place. Where is that place? Africa or South Asia?

Musa species are native to tropical Indomalaya and Australia, and are likely to have been first domesticated in Papua New Guinea.[2][3] They are grown in at least 107 countries,[4] primarily for their fruit, and to a lesser extent to make fiber, banana wine and banana beer and as ornamental plants.

OK, native to Indomalaya and Australia, moving away from Africa.

Recent archaeological and palaeoenvironmental evidence at Kuk Swamp in the Western Highlands Province of Papua New Guinea suggests that banana cultivation there goes back to at least 5000 BCE, and possibly to 8000 BCE.[2][42] It is likely that other species were later and independently domesticated elsewhere in Southeast Asia. Southeast Asia is the region of primary diversity of the banana

Hmm, banana cultivation began maybe 8,000 years ago. It was originally a hibiscus, so then, banana cultivation not only originated in South Asia and is native to Australia, but not Africa, then which is it?

Both humans and banana plants can walk. Fact.

If the simplest organisms have the fewest genes and the very first cell had even less then does that not make the kangaroo the most evolved creature on the planet,because it has the most genes?

WarminIndy
Yes, I get that idea that it was a long time ago. However, the song remains the same. Bananas came from South Asia. The ancestor of bananas was in South Asia.

For there to be a common ancestor, it needs to arise from the same place. Where is that place? Africa or South Asia?

All the continents were connected at one point.

WarminIndy
Did you even read the quote posted?

Yes...

WarminIndy
Shall I repost it?

Please don't, my face hurts enough already without having to re-read something you failed to monumentally grasp.

WarminIndy
Yes, I get that idea that it was a long time ago. However, the song remains the same. Bananas came from South Asia. The ancestor of bananas was in South Asia.

For there to be a common ancestor, it needs to arise from the same place. Where is that place? Africa or South Asia?

Ouch - stop it! You clearly have lost what little grasp on this you had.

The common ancestor was around when there wasn't an Asia or an Africa - in fact, it is highly likely that even Pangea wasn't around but a much earlier continent!

The rest of what you posted is just proof you don't understand much, so to save my face from a world of hurt, I won't quote it.

To try and make this clearer, the likely Common ancestor was probably around some 1.5 Billion years ago, give or take a few million years as this is when animals, plants and fungi appear to have diverged.

reply to post by WarminIndy


I took me some time but I found common ancestor of banana and humans:

reply to post by WarminIndy


I haven't heard the bananas and humans comparison before, that's kind of funny. Out of curiosity I'd like to know how much DNA is in common with humans and the other fruits.

I have heard the theory that bananas were "imported". Like, not from earth.

stumason

WarminIndy
Did you even read the quote posted?

Yes...

WarminIndy
Shall I repost it?

Please don't, my face hurts enough already without having to re-read something you failed to monumentally grasp.

WarminIndy
Yes, I get that idea that it was a long time ago. However, the song remains the same. Bananas came from South Asia. The ancestor of bananas was in South Asia.

For there to be a common ancestor, it needs to arise from the same place. Where is that place? Africa or South Asia?

Ouch - stop it! You clearly have lost what little grasp on this you had.

The common ancestor was around when there wasn't an Asia or an Africa - in fact, it is highly likely that even Pangea wasn't around but a much earlier continent!

The rest of what you posted is just proof you don't understand much, so to save my face from a world of hurt, I won't quote it.

To try and make this clearer, the likely Common ancestor was probably around some 1.5 Billion years ago, give or take a few million years as this is when animals, plants and fungi appear to have diverged.

So what you are telling me is that you don't know the common characteristics, according to the definition and that bananas and humans came from pangea, because you don't know the common characteristics. And that you don't know what the common ancestor was because it was just a very long time ago. I see that evolution is magic, shuffle a few words here or there to try to make it fit. You couldn't answer the basic question, one which you should have investigated more time in researching instead of blindly accepting it on the word of a scientist. And you dismiss Creationists for faith. You have assumptions and suppositions and theories. And that's all. For every scientist who says Out of Africa is right, there are as many who say Multi-regional is right. And yet you believe it all must be true because it is much easier to take a scientist's word. And yet his word is just an assumption that he willingly tells you it is an assumption.

The only evidence you have is a guy who says bananas and humans share genetic material and yet we are completely on different taxonomal scales. And you base this on what? And you say it was probably around 1.5 billion years ago, but you aren't sure. And that's what you want us to think.

I see, thank you for your time.

You can peel the skin off of both bananas and humans and eat them.

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.

reply to post by WarminIndy


if you don't believe in some kind of evolution and are going with creationism why did you even start this topic?
both creationism and evolution are theories.
with only two small differences; evolution is a scientific theory and evolution makes so much more sense and doesn't conflict with basically everything we know about our world.
it could be that the scientists are wrong and that creationism is correct - but the chances are pretty slim - close to 0.0001%

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.

reply to post by WarminIndy


AGAIN. Life came from the sea. Where it crawled out of the sea from is irrelevant. The common ancestor to plants and animals is from the sea. It diverged IN THE SEA and then came onto land on different parts of the world. They got there thanks to ocean currents and other ways that matter travels the oceans. Why is this so hard for you to understand?

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

~Lucidity
I'm no biologist, but I believe 50% similar isn't all that similar in genetic terms.

But both humans and bananas do have peels and do love to hang around in bunches and we both love to dance!

ETA: Do you know that Great Britain has extremely exacting standards on bananas they allow to be imported into their country? If it's too curved or too long, it's rejected. I only know this because a close friend of mine was an auditor who audited the people who measured the bananas!

edit on 3/26/2014 by ~Lucidity because: (no reason given)

Yeah! I have two eyes...like birds!
I have skin...like apples!
I have lungs! Just like slugs!