What Exactly Are the Common Characteristics Between Humans and Bananas?

reply to post by WarminIndy


You've had better replies to the question than that one, but you chose the most vague to try and prove a point... Ironic, as it was kept vague to keep it simple for your benefit!

I don't usually do this, but I think in this case it is a deserved EPIC FAIL...

reply to post by WarminIndy


What are you talking about? Science ALWAYS deals in probably. Science NEVER speaks in absolutes So yes, something can be PROBABLY true and "NOT PROBABLY" (sic). But you are failing to realize that there are different levels of probability. People in the science world call this phenomenon probability. When something is viewed as 80% or 90% probable, like say evolution, then we say that it has a fair chance of being true. When something is viewed as 5% or 10% probable, like say young earth creationism, the we say that it doesn't have a fair chance of being true.

You focus on the wrong words to try to prove your points...

flyingfish
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.

Uh huh.

OK, so maybe you guys really aren't about science.

Mods, have you taken notice that the forum you created for meaningful exchange of ideas is now the playground of bullies who think it's fun to beat up on people?

I'm not Ray, but go ahead, continue with what you were saying...

What you were saying was "the rest of us like beating you up because you don't think like we do". Give me a reason to think like you do, other than "science tells us how to think and we are now robots because we can no longer think on our own and must uphold the credo that science has all the answers for us and we don't have to question science even when scientists can't even agree".

Repeat mantra, repeat mantra, repeat mantra until it becomes a part of your life.

Are you a scientist, flying fish? What exactly is your field of scientific expertise?

reply to post by WarminIndy


I think you'll find you got turned on after you asked a legitimate question, got a legitimate answer and then proceeded to try and shoot it down with ill thought out counter arguments.

You have been provided with several, basic level answers to your question, yet you have ignored or just crapped all over them.

In a nutshell - and I am repeating myself here - the common characteristics between a human and a banana are found within the cells themselves. Things such as cell structure, movement of nutrients, we have mitochondria just like banana's, the same cellular respiration processes etc which is all governed by the DNA. I could go on, but I have made my point and answered your question.

Krazysh0t
reply to post by WarminIndy

 

What are you talking about? Science ALWAYS deals in probably. Science NEVER speaks in absolutes So yes, something can be PROBABLY true and "NOT PROBABLY" (sic). But you are failing to realize that there are different levels of probability. People in the science world call this phenomenon probability. When something is viewed as 80% or 90% probable, like say evolution, then we say that it has a fair chance of being true. When something is viewed as 5% or 10% probable, like say young earth creationism, the we say that it doesn't have a fair chance of being true.

You focus on the wrong words to try to prove your points...

So, since nothing in science can prove an absolute, then no one has to absolutely believe anything posed? And yet there are people who do absolutely believe in evolution, regardless of the probabilities.

But even if it has a fair chance, like say evolution, then you could say some facets of evolution might be true, like selective breeding. But there may be some facets that have less probability, like say primordial soup, so there's no reason for people to accept it as true because the probabilities may be much, much lower.

Primordial soup, for example, has never been observed or even capable of of being proven through experiments, even though scientists attempt. So therefore, primordial soup is not tangible evidence. But some people still hold on to primordial soup as evidence of evolution.

New Research Disproves Primordial Soup

And here is the wording

For 80 years it has been accepted that early life began in a "primordial soup" of organic molecules before evolving out of the oceans millions of years later. Today the "soup" theory has been overturned in a pioneering article which claims it was the Earth's chemical energy, from hydrothermal vents on the ocean floor, which kick-started early life.

My point is this...not that either theory is found to be absolute, but that it was accepted, but by whom? Was accepted means that it had high probability of being "true" therefore it must be the answer? Because there are no real absolutes, just probabilities, then there is nothing wrong with people not accepting every part of evolution. Wouldn't you say that is a fair statement?

My question was related to that endeavor, not to disprove anything about evolution, but what are those common characteristics within that framework, which facet of evolution would these characteristics be found under? What happened was people came along and said "WarminIndy is just another Creationist who we must fight against". But no one even asked me which parts of evolution that I do think about and what I might find as reasonable, given the probabilities. Nothing in evolution is absolute so I do not have to believe in absolutely is true. That should be fair on ATS as it is within the scientific community that has vast degrees of variance in what each individual scientist actually accepts, regardless of consensus.

I am not a young earther, no one even asked that of me. But it was assumed.

stumason
reply to post by WarminIndy

 

I think you'll find you got turned on after you asked a legitimate question, got a legitimate answer and then proceeded to try and shoot it down with ill thought out counter arguments.

You have been provided with several, basic level answers to your question, yet you have ignored or just crapped all over them.

In a nutshell - and I am repeating myself here - the common characteristics between a human and a banana are found within the cells themselves. Things such as cell structure, movement of nutrients, we have mitochondria just like banana's, the same cellular respiration processes etc which is all governed by the DNA. I could go on, but I have made my point and answered your question.

As you are repeating yourself, is that what you personally believe?

Have you based that the scientific experiments you have performed, or does it simply make sense to you, that is why you believe it?

WarminIndy
But even if it has a fair chance, like say evolution, then you could say some facets of evolution might be true, like selective breeding. But there may be some facets that have less probability, like say primordial soup, so there's no reason for people to accept it as true because the probabilities may be much, much lower.

Primordial soup, for example, has never been observed or even capable of of being proven through experiments, even though scientists attempt. So therefore, primordial soup is not tangible evidence. But some people still hold on to primordial soup as evidence of evolution.

You are lumping abiogenesis in with evolution. One is a scientific theory and therefore highly probable to be true and accurate. The other, abiogenesis ('primordial soup'), is a hypothesis and not nearly as probable. It still needs to be repeatedly tested before its odds of likelihood improve to where evolution currently stands.

This is what is classical known as a bait and troll thread. It has never been the OP's intent to have a meaningful, open dialog - but, rather use this thread as a thinly-veiled excuse deride science, and more specifically, evolution.

In all honesty, this thread is laughable lame because the OP has made a mockery of creationism and intelligent design. While I'm fairly certain that wasn't the original intent, that certainly is the final outcome.

reply to post by WarminIndy


Yes, I believe it because I have seen the evidence for it. I took the time to research the characteristics common to both a banana cell and a human cell. I haven't personally sequenced a banana, but I haven't personally flown a plane but I still know how it works and why.

stumason
I haven't personally sequenced a banana, but I haven't personally flown a plane but I still know how it works and why.

Lightweight. I personally sequenced a banana while flying an airplane.

I think a banana would have a better time grasping the concepts of evolution and the scientific method than OP.

reply to post by AugustusMasonicus




Show off

GetHyped
I think a banana would have a better time grasping the concepts of evolution and the scientific method than OP.

agree, case closed.
lock this so we can get some rest.
my IQ dropped by 20% only by reading some responses.

demus

GetHyped
I think a banana would have a better time grasping the concepts of evolution and the scientific method than OP.

agree, case closed.
lock this so we can get some rest.
my IQ dropped by 20% only by reading some responses.

No one forced you to come here in the first place. You didn't have to troll this thread.

It is my thread, if you have a problem with it, go and make your own thread to discuss bananas and humans. There, you can bash Creationists all you want.

But here, the question was asked. You didn't have to come here and declare yourself a winner and then ask for the thread to be closed. So let me ask, Mods, given the fact that I created this thread for the purpose of asking a question, then should the opinions of another poster who didn't have to come to this thread be a reason to lock it, based on their own opinions?

Stop the bully game, ok.

ATS is not your personal playground.

WarminIndy

Krazysh0t
reply to post by WarminIndy

 

What are you talking about? Science ALWAYS deals in probably. Science NEVER speaks in absolutes So yes, something can be PROBABLY true and "NOT PROBABLY" (sic). But you are failing to realize that there are different levels of probability. People in the science world call this phenomenon probability. When something is viewed as 80% or 90% probable, like say evolution, then we say that it has a fair chance of being true. When something is viewed as 5% or 10% probable, like say young earth creationism, the we say that it doesn't have a fair chance of being true.

You focus on the wrong words to try to prove your points...

So, since nothing in science can prove an absolute, then no one has to absolutely believe anything posed? And yet there are people who do absolutely believe in evolution, regardless of the probabilities.

Well those people are wrong. People are human, they all mistakes and all form misguided opinions. Being science minded makes them no different. People believing as such doesn't make evolutionary theory less valid though.

But even if it has a fair chance, like say evolution, then you could say some facets of evolution might be true, like selective breeding. But there may be some facets that have less probability, like say primordial soup, so there's no reason for people to accept it as true because the probabilities may be much, much lower.

The primordial soup isn't part of evolutionary theory though. So this whole paragraph is a straw man argument. Evolution DOESN'T deal with how life life began. It starts with the premise that life already exists.

Primordial soup, for example, has never been observed or even capable of of being proven through experiments, even though scientists attempt. So therefore, primordial soup is not tangible evidence. But some people still hold on to primordial soup as evidence of evolution.

New Research Disproves Primordial Soup

You are talking about the Abiogenesis hypothesis and I must stress that Abiogenesis is a hypothesis NOT a theory.

And here is the wording

For 80 years it has been accepted that early life began in a "primordial soup" of organic molecules before evolving out of the oceans millions of years later. Today the "soup" theory has been overturned in a pioneering article which claims it was the Earth's chemical energy, from hydrothermal vents on the ocean floor, which kick-started early life.

My point is this...not that either theory is found to be absolute, but that it was accepted, but by whom? Was accepted means that it had high probability of being "true" therefore it must be the answer? Because there are no real absolutes, just probabilities, then there is nothing wrong with people not accepting every part of evolution. Wouldn't you say that is a fair statement?

Sure, just don't lump abiogenesis or the start of life with evolution. It also helps to have good logical reasoning and proof to back up your disbelief. Otherwise people like all the people disagreeing with you in this thread will call you out on it.

My question was related to that endeavor, not to disprove anything about evolution, but what are those common characteristics within that framework, which facet of evolution would these characteristics be found under? What happened was people came along and said "WarminIndy is just another Creationist who we must fight against". But no one even asked me which parts of evolution that I do think about and what I might find as reasonable, given the probabilities. Nothing in evolution is absolute so I do not have to believe in absolutely is true. That should be fair on ATS as it is within the scientific community that has vast degrees of variance in what each individual scientist actually accepts, regardless of consensus.

I am not a young earther, no one even asked that of me. But it was assumed.

edit on 3/28/2014 by WarminIndy because: (no reason given)

Assumptions aside, the posters in this thread HAVE answered your question. They've provided links and sources that describe the VERY thing you've been asking as defined by scientists (the best authority we could possibly have on the matter). Yet you continue to say that isn't good enough. There are two ways you can go about questioning things. With an open mind and accept the answers given to you by the people you ask, or with a closed mind where you refute all answers to your questions because they don't jive with your world view or the point you are trying to make. When people, such as yourself, approach a topic like this with a closed mind, us evolution proponents start making connections to another group of people that do that, they are the YEC crowd. So it is only natural that they (we) assumed you are a YEC, you've been acting like one. You've even done it in this VERY post that I have quoted and am responding to. You've incorrectly lumped how life was created into the definition evolution, which is a VERY popular straw man argument that YECs use to try to debunk evolution. You are playing cards from their hand.

stumason
reply to post by AugustusMasonicus

 

Show off

Let me ask this : Do all of you absolutely believe in evolution?

Don't give me "things are "acceptable", "things are "true", "things are probable". That's all soft language.

If you don't believe it is absolute and that you don't absolutely believe it, then those who don't absolutely believe are just as correct as you are.

Wouldn't you agree that is a fair statement?

Krazysh0t

WarminIndy

Krazysh0t
reply to post by WarminIndy

 

What are you talking about? Science ALWAYS deals in probably. Science NEVER speaks in absolutes So yes, something can be PROBABLY true and "NOT PROBABLY" (sic). But you are failing to realize that there are different levels of probability. People in the science world call this phenomenon probability. When something is viewed as 80% or 90% probable, like say evolution, then we say that it has a fair chance of being true. When something is viewed as 5% or 10% probable, like say young earth creationism, the we say that it doesn't have a fair chance of being true.

You focus on the wrong words to try to prove your points...

So, since nothing in science can prove an absolute, then no one has to absolutely believe anything posed? And yet there are people who do absolutely believe in evolution, regardless of the probabilities.

Well those people are wrong. People are human, they all mistakes and all form misguided opinions. Being science minded makes them no different. People believing as such doesn't make evolutionary theory less valid though.

But even if it has a fair chance, like say evolution, then you could say some facets of evolution might be true, like selective breeding. But there may be some facets that have less probability, like say primordial soup, so there's no reason for people to accept it as true because the probabilities may be much, much lower.

The primordial soup isn't part of evolutionary theory though. So this whole paragraph is a straw man argument. Evolution DOESN'T deal with how life life began. It starts with the premise that life already exists.

Primordial soup, for example, has never been observed or even capable of of being proven through experiments, even though scientists attempt. So therefore, primordial soup is not tangible evidence. But some people still hold on to primordial soup as evidence of evolution.

New Research Disproves Primordial Soup

You are talking about the Abiogenesis hypothesis and I must stress that Abiogenesis is a hypothesis NOT a theory.

And here is the wording

For 80 years it has been accepted that early life began in a "primordial soup" of organic molecules before evolving out of the oceans millions of years later. Today the "soup" theory has been overturned in a pioneering article which claims it was the Earth's chemical energy, from hydrothermal vents on the ocean floor, which kick-started early life.

My point is this...not that either theory is found to be absolute, but that it was accepted, but by whom? Was accepted means that it had high probability of being "true" therefore it must be the answer? Because there are no real absolutes, just probabilities, then there is nothing wrong with people not accepting every part of evolution. Wouldn't you say that is a fair statement?

Sure, just don't lump abiogenesis or the start of life with evolution. It also helps to have good logical reasoning and proof to back up your disbelief. Otherwise people like all the people disagreeing with you in this thread will call you out on it.

My question was related to that endeavor, not to disprove anything about evolution, but what are those common characteristics within that framework, which facet of evolution would these characteristics be found under? What happened was people came along and said "WarminIndy is just another Creationist who we must fight against". But no one even asked me which parts of evolution that I do think about and what I might find as reasonable, given the probabilities. Nothing in evolution is absolute so I do not have to believe in absolutely is true. That should be fair on ATS as it is within the scientific community that has vast degrees of variance in what each individual scientist actually accepts, regardless of consensus.

I am not a young earther, no one even asked that of me. But it was assumed.

edit on 3/28/2014 by WarminIndy because: (no reason given)

Assumptions aside, the posters in this thread HAVE answered your question. They've provided links and sources that describe the VERY thing you've been asking as defined by scientists (the best authority we could possibly have on the matter). Yet you continue to say that isn't good enough. There are two ways you can go about questioning things. With an open mind and accept the answers given to you by the people you ask, or with a closed mind where you refute all answers to your questions because they don't jive with your world view or the point you are trying to make. When people, such as yourself, approach a topic like this with a closed mind, us evolution proponents start making connections to another group of people that do that, they are the YEC crowd. So it is only natural that they (we) assumed you are a YEC, you've been acting like one. You've even done it in this VERY post that I have quoted and am responding to. You've incorrectly lumped how life was created into the definition evolution, which is a VERY popular straw man argument that YECs use to try to debunk evolution. You are playing cards from their hand.

edit on 28-3-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)

Krazyshot

I, ME, THIS PERSON has been the only one providing links.

I only mentioned the abiogenesis link, not to talk about abiogenesis, but to point out that "it had been accepted for 80 years", meaning that people accepted it for 80 years, meaning that not every theory posited by the scientific community holds weight, but people still believe every theory. Do you understand?

I am not arguing abiogenesis, only that people accept what science says about different scientific theories, even if it turns out not to be right. OK, misunderstood, or maybe dodged, by people on your side.

I wasn't disussing abiogenesis, merely using the acceptance of abiogenesis as an example. OK.

WarminIndy

demus

GetHyped
I think a banana would have a better time grasping the concepts of evolution and the scientific method than OP.

agree, case closed.
lock this so we can get some rest.
my IQ dropped by 20% only by reading some responses.

No one forced you to come here in the first place. You didn't have to troll this thread.

It is my thread, if you have a problem with it, go and make your own thread to discuss bananas and humans. There, you can bash Creationists all you want.

But here, the question was asked. You didn't have to come here and declare yourself a winner and then ask for the thread to be closed. So let me ask, Mods, given the fact that I created this thread for the purpose of asking a question, then should the opinions of another poster who didn't have to come to this thread be a reason to lock it, based on their own opinions?

Stop the bully game, ok.

ATS is not your personal playground.

the question were answered.
I too, have answered what I think is ONE characteristic banana and human share - they contain WATER.
I don't know why this turned into discussion about evolution and creationism.
theory of evolution may be not 100% correct but it is definitely more plausible than creationism.
also, many people who believe in GOD, don't have anything against the theory of evolution.
even GOD has his systems; ways of nature.

reply to post by WarminIndy


I can't speak for anyone else, but yes, I wholeheartedly "believe" in evolution because there is overwhelming evidence to support the theory. It's not a matter of "faith" though, before anyone tries to twist the use of the word "believe". Faith requires you to believe no matter what.
However, if someone came out at a later date with a new theory, supported by empirical evidence then I would give it consideration also.

What do humans have in common with bananas..

1 - both can be porn stars.
2 - both hung from tree braches at one point.
3 - both have skin that can be peeled to reveal a squishy inside...

Further than that...nothing..

Eating 10 bananas a day saved my life !!