It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What Exactly Are the Common Characteristics Between Humans and Bananas?

page: 8
10
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 28 2014 @ 01:04 PM
link   

demus
reply to post by WarminIndy
 

so, from banana and human common characteristics to discussing sociology, philosophy and psychology?
I say why not...


Well we have to get past sociology, philosophy and psychology before discussing anything else.

There was a huge knee jerk reaction from people. I don't think it was justified at all. But let's move forward, shall we?




posted on Mar, 28 2014 @ 01:06 PM
link   

WarminIndy

demus
reply to post by WarminIndy
 

so, from banana and human common characteristics to discussing sociology, philosophy and psychology?
I say why not...


Well we have to get past sociology, philosophy and psychology before discussing anything else.

There was a huge knee jerk reaction from people. I don't think it was justified at all. But let's move forward, shall we?


You were the one who started dismissing scientific claims and making your own ignorant claims about the natural world. Don't try and wiggle out of it by making it out that everyone else got the wrong end of the stick.



posted on Mar, 28 2014 @ 01:19 PM
link   

bastion
reply to post by WarminIndy
 


Belief doesn't come into evolution as it's evident and established beyond doubt and has yet to be disproven.

However as a Mathematician and Physicist I do hold certain beliefs over what theories I find more likely to be true when dealing with theoretical, cutting edge science (i.e Grand Universal Theories) but I acknowledge they're purely a belief and what I would like to be true has no bearing on what the truth actually is; so put no weight behind my beliefs.

For example I wouldn't study a particular area in great detail unless I had a hunch, belief or gut instinct that it would turn out to be true, but that has no impact on whether it actually is true or not.

Before a scientist can explore these kind of subject areas they need to first identify their beliefs in order to make sure they are not designing experiments or theories that only serve to confirm them, instead of conducting objective research.
edit on 28-3-2014 by bastion because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-3-2014 by bastion because: (no reason given)


I hope you understand though that within the scientific community, there is a divergent view and what is perceived as true and not possible that isn't based on actual observations or experiments, and when those "Scientific theories" are presented to the general public, people believe it is true, because they don't want the alternative.

If you read the first line of my post, remember that I said that when Ken Ham said it, I didn't know where he got that information was, that's why I looked it up.

But it is ok for me to question things offered, I must be like you and not simply grasp everything coming from "the scientific community". Which is exactly what happened, without the scientific community addressing this phenomenon or responsibility. People believe that you, as a scientist, holds authority, so therefore they won't ask questions of you, and when they do, they have to be subjected to behavior as I was on this thread. But it doesn't matter, my mind is my own and I have the right to think about anything and question everything.

I don't know about String Theory or Quantum Physics, but that's a huge debate among scientists. Some people would believe you, because you are an "Authority". So given your requirements for your own skepticism about things, it should be also my right to be skeptical. You cannot say you have the right to be skeptical about certain scientific theories and then say someone else does not have the right to be skeptical. If you go through the endless threads about the subject, you would see that very thing.

I don't hold you as an authority, but that's my right not to. I can appreciate that you know about science, but I also have the right to question those things you propose. I am sure there were many things your professors have said that you questioned also.

But if you go back through every thread in which you have been starred in, did you say in the majority of those posts that it was simply how you personally believed things based on your own research, and did you allow others to take your word as Gospel truth and permit bashing of other people for their own skeptical beliefs?



posted on Mar, 28 2014 @ 01:23 PM
link   

GetHyped

WarminIndy

demus
reply to post by WarminIndy
 

so, from banana and human common characteristics to discussing sociology, philosophy and psychology?
I say why not...


Well we have to get past sociology, philosophy and psychology before discussing anything else.

There was a huge knee jerk reaction from people. I don't think it was justified at all. But let's move forward, shall we?


You were the one who started dismissing scientific claims and making your own ignorant claims about the natural world. Don't try and wiggle out of it by making it out that everyone else got the wrong end of the stick.


Read again. I said show me the evidence. I asked for peer reviews from the author in question. No one mentioned the book it was stated in, I did.

But as it stands, please give me the peer reviews of the subject in question. It was presented in The Single Helix. Did you read the book? If you did, then you can discuss it with me.



posted on Mar, 28 2014 @ 02:28 PM
link   

WarminIndy

bastion
reply to post by WarminIndy
 


Belief doesn't come into evolution as it's evident and established beyond doubt and has yet to be disproven.

However as a Mathematician and Physicist I do hold certain beliefs over what theories I find more likely to be true when dealing with theoretical, cutting edge science (i.e Grand Universal Theories) but I acknowledge they're purely a belief and what I would like to be true has no bearing on what the truth actually is; so put no weight behind my beliefs.

For example I wouldn't study a particular area in great detail unless I had a hunch, belief or gut instinct that it would turn out to be true, but that has no impact on whether it actually is true or not.

Before a scientist can explore these kind of subject areas they need to first identify their beliefs in order to make sure they are not designing experiments or theories that only serve to confirm them, instead of conducting objective research.
edit on 28-3-2014 by bastion because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-3-2014 by bastion because: (no reason given)


I hope you understand though that within the scientific community, there is a divergent view and what is perceived as true and not possible that isn't based on actual observations or experiments, and when those "Scientific theories" are presented to the general public, people believe it is true, because they don't want the alternative.

If you read the first line of my post, remember that I said that when Ken Ham said it, I didn't know where he got that information was, that's why I looked it up.

But it is ok for me to question things offered, I must be like you and not simply grasp everything coming from "the scientific community". Which is exactly what happened, without the scientific community addressing this phenomenon or responsibility. People believe that you, as a scientist, holds authority, so therefore they won't ask questions of you, and when they do, they have to be subjected to behavior as I was on this thread. But it doesn't matter, my mind is my own and I have the right to think about anything and question everything.

I don't know about String Theory or Quantum Physics, but that's a huge debate among scientists. Some people would believe you, because you are an "Authority". So given your requirements for your own skepticism about things, it should be also my right to be skeptical. You cannot say you have the right to be skeptical about certain scientific theories and then say someone else does not have the right to be skeptical. If you go through the endless threads about the subject, you would see that very thing.

I don't hold you as an authority, but that's my right not to. I can appreciate that you know about science, but I also have the right to question those things you propose. I am sure there were many things your professors have said that you questioned also.

But if you go back through every thread in which you have been starred in, did you say in the majority of those posts that it was simply how you personally believed things based on your own research, and did you allow others to take your word as Gospel truth and permit bashing of other people for their own skeptical beliefs?



Do you mean when pop science is reported in the press and the like? If so yes because it's dumbed down and simplified to a point where it bares little to no resemblance to the original topic. However it doesn't exist in proper science (i.e journals and the like) due to peer review and similar and it's impossible to write a paper or theory without having tested the hypothesis first. Also scientists use phraseology in the scientific sense rather than the generalised public meaning (which does cause confusion).

The problem doesn't come from the scientists themselves but from people failing to read the original papers and going off the, 99 times out of 100, incorrect reporting and sensationalised coverage that papers receive (i.e See the MMR/Autism scare in the UK for example, where the Daily Mail falsely claimed there was a link which has caused major increases in measles, mumps and rubella, despite the original paper by Wakefield being long disproven). The 'argument from authority' principle does pose major risks to public health, but they're to be found in the press, not academia.

Ken Ham isn't a scientist, he's a young Earth creationist who abuses science to make it fit in with the bible, which is the complete opposite of science. Though he is a good example of someone claiming to be a scientist and abusing the title to fool others.

You weren't subjected to ridicule because you questioned the science but because you we're trying to disprove one of the most rigorously proven scientific principles without a basic understanding of what it was you were trying to disprove (i.e reductio ad absurdium of people being able to mate with bananas simply because our reproduction follows the same principles).

One of the main principles of science is to question absolutely everything. It's how science progresses - however there's a big difference between asking a legitimate question out of curiosity and creating logical fallacies via selective quoting to make it appear as if the scientific consensus is flawed. The former aids learning, the latter gets in the way of it by creating false barriers and confusion where it needn't exist.

I don't expect anyone to take my claims at face value, this is the internet after all and for all you know I could be making everything up about my qualifications and research - that's why I try to provide sources for such claims.
edit on 28-3-2014 by bastion because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-3-2014 by bastion because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 28 2014 @ 02:32 PM
link   
reply to post by bastion
 


Well said and basically summarizes what we have been trying to get across to the OP since page 1.



posted on Mar, 28 2014 @ 04:18 PM
link   
reply to post by bastion
 


I hope you realize that some people who starred you in the last post aren't really interested in hard science, but the pop science you talked about?

But I digress, where are the peer reviews of the human/banana connection so that I may read them?



posted on Mar, 28 2014 @ 04:31 PM
link   



posted on Mar, 28 2014 @ 06:11 PM
link   

flyingfish


Whatevaz....

I have Multiple Sclerosis and have had cancer. So I know the value of scientific research. I also know that scientific research is very disputed. I don't have time to listen to every scientific theory.

But all of you scientists on here arguing with me about bananas, when is the cure for Multiple Sclerosis going to come? I've heard it for 14 years, we will have a cure in our lifetime.

Don't think for a minute that I have not heard it all when it comes to scientific theories. Arguing with me doesn't solve the problems. When I asked for the common characteristics, all I got was a lot of "you don't understand science". Tell me, when is the cure coming?

Right now I take a shot every week, I did have to take one every day. But given the fact that so many MS medications are fraught by drawbacks, and we wait continually, people want to argue evolution but why aren't you scientists of chemistry giving us cures instead of trolling ATS all the time?

Bananas/humans....but no cures for serious conditions.



posted on Mar, 28 2014 @ 07:43 PM
link   

WarminIndy

flyingfish


Whatevaz....

I have Multiple Sclerosis and have had cancer. So I know the value of scientific research. I also know that scientific research is very disputed.


Kind of a broad generalization there isn't it? you make it sound like there aren't different scientific disciplines and everyone just goes to college and majors in "Scientist" and then gets together after work to compare notes.


I don't have time to listen to every scientific theory.


Then why start a thread asking a question based on science if you don't want to wade through the supporting data?


But all of you scientists on here arguing with me about bananas, when is the cure for Multiple Sclerosis going to come? I've heard it for 14 years, we will have a cure in our lifetime.


Since it's your thread and the title is "What Exactly Are the Common Characteristics Between Humans and Bananas?" I think it should be rather apparent why nobody is discussing MS. It has no relevance to the topic you yourself chose yo inquire about and only serves as a distraction to the crux of your query.


Don't think for a minute that I have not heard it all when it comes to scientific theories.


Let me refresh what you said earlier in this exact post-

I don't have time to listen to every scientific theory.

if you don't have time to listen to them all then you have NOT heard it all.


Arguing with me doesn't solve the problems. When I asked for the common characteristics, all I got was a lot of "you don't understand science". Tell me, when is the cure coming?



Somewhat out of context there... nobody came in with the "you don't understand science" statements until you were given answers and disputed them despite having sources and links provided. And refusing to accept legitimate evidence and data doesn't answer your question or solve anything either. It leads people down the path of indoctrinated ignorance, rather contrary to your claims of keeping an open mind.


Right now I take a shot every week, I did have to take one every day. But given the fact that so many MS medications are fraught by drawbacks, and we wait continually, people want to argue evolution but why aren't you scientists of chemistry giving us cures instead of trolling ATS all the time?

Bananas/humans....but no cures for serious conditions.

I'm really sorry that you have to suffer with this condition. One of my oldest friends has MS and its a pretty horrendous, debilitating disease. However it's got absolutely nothing to do with DNA and a comparison between the percentages shared by humans and bananas. It almost seems as if you're purposely derailing your own thread.


Now, you asked earlier if anyone could send you a link for peer reviewed data of comparison between bananas and Humans genetic sequence. There is no such paper. The number is based on the individual sequencing of both and then being compared by biologists and the Human Genome Project. Sometimes when the data is fully accepted as true( That we definitely have mapped the human genome and can determine precisely what where and why the markers are and then published that data for peer review and separately the same had been done for the banana) there is no reason to write a separate paper and submit it for review. It would be redundant to do so when all you have to do is obtain a printout of each sequencing report and compare them side by side.

We share approx. 40% of our DNA with bacteria, about 60% with insects, 75% with all reptiles, 90% with all other mammals, 98% with chimpanzees. The closer you get to us on the geologic timescale, the more genetic similarities there are, the farther back you go and the more archaic the comparisons then less commonalities will be present in the sequence. The only way this makes no sense or seems illogical is if you absolutely do not believe in evolution.

If however you want a starting point to look farther into this, I would start with Steve Jones. He's a British biologist most famous for the statement comparing the human and banana genomes.



posted on Mar, 28 2014 @ 09:00 PM
link   
reply to post by peter vlar
 


May I ask then, why are people always talking about needing to see peer-reviewed papers? You mean Steve Jones wasn't peer reviewed for this?

But no, I have not heard it all, but enough to know that I have the right to be skeptical about every scientific theory put out there. It's not like I haven't read about the research for MS and drug therapies. Making the comparisons between MS research and research for other things, we get a lot of research tossed at us.

For all I have heard, MS is environmental, dietary (nutrients depleted in soil), Aspertame, cigarette smoking, you name it I've heard it all. But big money is in MS research and the latest medications are constantly being taken off the market because the side effects were too great.

Once you get past the idea that scientific research doesn't have all the answers, then why believe anything just because the scientific community agrees on things, when they don't on agree on everything?

After 14 years, can you at least understand why I choose to remain skeptical about things? This banana/human connection is going to be one of those things. But let me ask this, how many MS patients were told that Stem Cell Therapy would be their cure? How many MS patients were told they needed to drink more milk? And how many MS patients thought they should fly to Poland to have surgery for the veins in their neck, because a Polish scientist found that some MS patients have collapsed veins?

I am for what works. But research is money, and a lot of money is invested into all kinds of illnesses. But then it gets down to this "have faith, one day scientists are going to find a cure". Have faith? I am asked to have faith in science when scientists tell me that faith has nothing to do with it? Then tell me that I need to believe the banana/human connection because some guy said it's true?

In the meantime, money is invested every year. These scientists on here can tell you that themselves. Big money on research to tell us bananas and humans are connected...but then no peer review to back it up? I choose to remain skeptical, because you guys demand peer review and then say there is none for this one, and you are casual about that?

It's peoples lives we are dealing with, and MS patients like every other patient of any illness are told to have faith, but the scientists say don't have faith. Then get upset with us because we are skeptical. Give me a reason not to be skeptical, ok. There's no cure for cancer, MS, Parkinson's or anything else, but have faith because it will happen. Then tell me not to have faith because the scientist doesn't have faith. Do you see the conundrum?



posted on Mar, 28 2014 @ 09:02 PM
link   

WarminIndy
reply to post by bastion
 


I hope you realize that some people who starred you in the last post aren't really interested in hard science, but the pop science you talked about?

But I digress, where are the peer reviews of the human/banana connection so that I may read them?


ATGC

Educate yourself.



posted on Mar, 28 2014 @ 09:03 PM
link   

helldiver

WarminIndy
reply to post by bastion
 


I hope you realize that some people who starred you in the last post aren't really interested in hard science, but the pop science you talked about?

But I digress, where are the peer reviews of the human/banana connection so that I may read them?


ATGC

Educate yourself.


Was that an offer to an answer to the question?



posted on Mar, 28 2014 @ 09:28 PM
link   
reply to post by WarminIndy
 


I have read that, even though chimps (I think) and humans are around 96% similar, that actually means there are still millions and millions of differences. So, that 50% between humans and bananas is an astronomical difference. I believe the similarities they've found just means the almighty Creator uses similar "materials" to make His creations.

edit on 28-3-2014 by jeramie because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 28 2014 @ 09:34 PM
link   
OP, you made some claims that many people here on ATS would agree with.
the problem is that it tend to get lost in bitter - sweet mix of science, philosophy, spirituality and biology.
talk less - say more-



posted on Mar, 28 2014 @ 10:04 PM
link   

demus
OP, you made some claims that many people here on ATS would agree with.
the problem is that it tend to get lost in bitter - sweet mix of science, philosophy, spirituality and biology.
talk less - say more-


I do agree with you.

It's a tough thing. We need to see each other's sides before expecting each side to believe or have faith in claims made in the name of science or religion.

I said that I don't know how the great intelligent designer did it, but if that great one made us related to bananas, I did say that I think it is possible as man does come from the ground. That is something I can't deny. And if that is the case, then we could be related to bananas, I just wanted to know exactly what was common. I did say carbon and that's where I will stand on that. But water? Everything needs water to live. That's why I found that one funny.

Is it fair to say that I believe the great intelligent designer did this but breathed into us the breath of life? Is it fair to say that if we come from the ground and as that last thing designed, we were special enough to be so different because we have intellect and the power to reason?

If you put it that way, that we share common characteristics because ultimately we came from the same ground, then that is acceptable to me. I don't know why people assume that because I questioned the banana/human connection that it meant I believed that man was independently created out of nothing. That was not what I was thinking. But if you say carbon is our common ancestor, I will totally agree.



posted on Mar, 28 2014 @ 10:23 PM
link   

WarminIndy
reply to post by peter vlar
 


May I ask then, why are people always talking about needing to see peer-reviewed papers? You mean Steve Jones wasn't peer reviewed for this?


The human genome has been fully sequenced, peer reviewed and published. Likewise the banana has as well. I may have put my cart before the horse by stating that there was no peer reviewed paper comparing the human genome and that of the banana. I looked and could not find one. From what i could find, it was an observation based on the known sequences of many many genomes and more anecdotal as support for evolutionary theory. There just isn't a need to do all the research over again and publish all the data over again for the sake of a comparison. The important part, the actual sequencing, was what needed to be published and reviewed. Dr. Jones has many peer reviewed papers to his credit. If you would like to go over them ill be happy to pull up links. Though without paying, you may be limited to abstracts in some instances as opposed to the full paper. If you'd like to compare for yourself I'm sure I can find links for the human genomic sequence as well as that of the banana so you can look for yourself.


But no, I have not heard it all, but enough to know that I have the right to be skeptical about every scientific theory put out there. It's not like I haven't read about the research for MS and drug therapies. Making the comparisons between MS research and research for other things, we get a lot of research tossed at us. Once you get past the idea that scientific research doesn't have all the answers, then why believe anything just because the scientific community agrees on things, when they don't on agree on everything?


There's a huge difference though between profit driven medical research and the type of research the majority of people pursuing science. And even when dealing with disagreement, the vast majority of the time it's over smll particulars or incidentals to the theory or hypothesis in question. For example in anthropology there are some disputes about natural selection vs. punctuated equilibrium. There is no disagreement between either party that evolution itself is the real McCoy.


After 14 years, can you at least understand why I choose to remain skeptical about things? This banana/human connection is going to be one of those things. But let me ask this, how many MS patients were told that Stem Cell Therapy would be their cure? How many MS patients were told they needed to drink more milk? And how many MS patients thought they should fly to Poland to have surgery for the veins in their neck, because a Polish scientist found that some MS patients have collapsed veins?


I completely understand that you have a completely different perspective about this than many people. Those of us arguing "against" you are doing so from either a research background or a love of science whereas you're perspective is more along the lines of someone who has been let down by science. I can't fault you for being frustrated as your body begins to turn against you. The flip side to that though is that there are sme people on here and n this thread who have been studying or practving within their fields for 14 years or in some cases far longer. I gave my first presentation on Australopithecines in 1989 for example. In most cases its not a matter of repeating what someone else who is an authority stated previously but based on their own work, research and experiments. Can you understand the frustration of knowing something to be true and trying to explain it to an unreceptive party who has a jaded attitude towards "science"?


I am for what works. But research is money, and a lot of money is invested into all kinds of illnesses. But then it gets down to this "have faith, one day scientists are going to find a cure". Have faith? I am asked to have faith in science when scientists tell me that faith has nothing to do with it? Then tell me that I need to believe the banana/human connection because some guy said it's true?


Nobody is telling you have to believe anything. They simply have been attempting to show you data and evidence that supports their argument. Te beautiful thing about science is it works just the same whether you believe in it or not. You don't have to believe in gravity to keep from being flung out if our atmosphere into a near vacuum. Again, profit driven medical research just isn't the same as say a scientist working for the Human Genome Project who is sequencing DNA to better understand it and how it works and how it all applies to us whereas in the profit driven medical end of it it's about money and marketing drugs with helping people almost a secondary byproduct of the process.


In the meantime, money is invested every year. These scientists on here can tell you that themselves. Big money on research to tell us bananas and humans are connected...but then no peer review to back it up? I choose to remain skeptical, because you guys demand peer review and then say there is none for this one, and you are casual about that?

It's peoples lives we are dealing with, and MS patients like every other patient of any illness are told to have faith, but the scientists say don't have faith. Then get upset with us because we are skeptical. Give me a reason not to be skeptical, ok. There's no cure for cancer, MS, Parkinson's or anything else, but have faith because it will happen. Then tell me not to have faith because the scientist doesn't have faith. Do you see the conundrum?



What money was spent on comparing the 2 genomes? They were seperatley sequenced already. People makes comparisons all the time based on publicly available and published data. Nobody says scientists don't have faith. Not believing in a higher power isn't the same as having no faith. I believe strongly in what I have learned and have a degree of faith that the knowledge is true. It's faith that is based on work I did while in school, hands on work and research. It's not based on a lecture or someone who told me it was true. Please take this next statement with a grain of salt, but honestly it doesn't appear to me that you're skeptical of science as much as you are angry and cynical over the failure of science to cure you and make you whole again as you are forced to watch your own body slowly wither. Oftentimes when we have no control over situations we lash out at an easy target. I this case the target is the people who are supposed to be helping you but instead wasting their time and money on bananas.

See, I'm not noticing a conundrum. I helped to take care of my mother in law who died from Parkinson's related complications and as I mentioned previously one of my oldest friends has MS and as an outsider it's an awful feeling of helplessness so I can't even begin to imagine what it's like to be on the inside and your mind works just fine while your neurons are firing helter skelter with no rhyme or reason. But if you keep up with the research, you'd find there are constantly new advances being made with many of these conditions and diseases. There are going to be human trials as early as this summer for a possible cure for all or nearly all cancers. stemcell.stanford.edu...

Based on findings from my mother in laws brain necropsy(she donated her body to Johns Hopkins for Parkinson's research) they were able to firmly establish links between Parkinson's, Alzheimer's and the build up of plaque in the brain which is leading to new directions of research that could lead to new treatments that will at least slow the progression. That research could also have potential correlations with MS research. I understand that when you're body no longer acts like its yours its nearly impossible to listen to healthy people tell you to be patient. It's infuriating. But blaming all of science for the failings of some is not at all fair. Ok... MS research isn't doing anything to help you right now but it doesn't change the fact that gravity is real, that nuclear fission is real, that water is made from two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom or that evolution is true and so is it true that all flora and fauna on earth today will share some degree of DNA in common based on common ancestry. That's not to be mistaken for having morphology in common though.



posted on Mar, 28 2014 @ 10:59 PM
link   
reply to post by peter vlar
 


My mtDNA haplotype is T2b17. People are wondering how some Neanderthal have mtDNA haplotypes that aren't found in Africa. I've heard Afrocentrics say that Neanderthal must have been from Africa, went to Europe, and then went back to Africa, and then became Anatomically Modern Human, or what we are today. They haven't grasped that Europeans have high percentages of Neandtheral, mine is 2.9%. And they reject it. Then they say their percentages of Neanderthal must have come from Africa, there's no way their European ancestors could have been that.

It's a huge debate.

T2b in Siberia

Even T2b is getting a beating now, because T2b has shown up in skeletons of UP times in Siberia, before the time frame Bryan Sykes has said "Tara" was in Italy.

My pardons to people who are Afrocentrics, I know there is a lot of validity to that, however there is a lot of validity to multi-regional as well. I think this has led to more racism.

Greek Cave Skull Challenges Out of Africa

But what about Homo Floresienses?



posted on Mar, 28 2014 @ 11:27 PM
link   
reply to post by WarminIndy
 


Banana cells metabolize sugars and oxygen. Ours do too (except we don't photosynthesize).

Bananas are carbon based with their genetics coded into deoxyribonucleicacid (DNA). The DNA molecule consists of alternate pairings of four chemical bases, Adenosine, Cytosine, Guanine and Thymine. The minimum segment of any gene consists of a codon of three base pairs and these codons translate to particular amino acids through RNA duplication of DNA segments. The same genetics, coding and chemistry works for us too. So much so that human genes can be spliced into a banana or banana genes spliced into Humans.

We are prone to diseases as are bananas.

There are complex rules for cell apoptosis as there are for us.

With bananas, the original genetic strains have become exitinct and so all bananas are reproduced asexually through human intevention. With human beings, cumulative damage to the male Y chomosome is likely to make the chromosome inviable within the next 15,000 years and so the human race is likely to have to survive by asexual assited reproduction.

There is much banana like about humans.



posted on Mar, 28 2014 @ 11:34 PM
link   

chr0naut
reply to post by WarminIndy
 


With bananas, the original genetic strains have become exitinct and so all bananas are reproduced asexually through human intevention. With human beings, cumulative damage to the male Y chomosome is likely to make the chromosome inviable within the next 15,000 years and so the human race is likely to have to survive by asexual assited reproduction.

There is much banana like about humans.


OK, that makes sense.

But the rest of it, the human race is going to be artificially kept alive? Wow, that's some theory there. Will Nibiru hit us before that happens?

Asexual reproduction of humans. Does that mean The Hunger Games will be real, in the future?

And that will lead to some terrible racism. Which groups should be allowed to pass while some others are manipulated? See, that is a little irresponsible because people will take that and try to justify racism.
edit on 3/28/2014 by WarminIndy because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join