We are all half banana!

[Timsup2nothin]

There is nothing stopping anybody from creating any sort of religion they want using whatever imaginary creatures they desire.

But it has absolutely nothing to do with science which require absolutely no "belief" whatsoever.

Oh?

So do photons and other particles communicate instantaneously over distance (faster than light), or is it just convenient to act like they do...except when it is more convenient to act like they don't?

Science requires the belief that even though it contradicts itself it is still useful. I believe that, of course, but I acknowledge that if you look for strict scientific proof you do end up jammed up on the contradiction.

 

[Formaldehyde]

It all depends on whichever theory you think is more plausible given what we now know. Or which theory best describes the hypothesis you want to test.

There are an incredible number of unknowns in science. But that is no problem. Become a scientist and see if you can resolve even one of them. Eventually they will be.

Unlike religion, that is how science works because there is no such thing as "belief". If a given theory is found to be lacking based on new evidence, the theory is simply changed or replaced entirely. No biggie. It happens all the time.

Religion is for those who want to know all the supposed answers today. Science is for those who really don't care how long it takes for the real truth to eventually emerge, or how many times what we think might be true is changed for the better. Scientists don't really mind at all that we don't know all the answers right now. That is a large part of the allure.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

It all depends on whichever theory you think is more plausible given what we now know.

There are an incredible number of unknowns in science. But that is no problem. Become a scientist and see if you can resolve even one of them. Eventually they will be.

Unlike religion, that is how science works because there is no such thing as "belief". If a given theory is found to be lacking based on new evidence, the theory is simply changed or replaced entirely. No biggie. It happens all the time.

Religion is for those who want to know all the supposed answers today. Science is for those who really don't care how long it takes.

I rest my case.

the issue there is that the vast majority of believers in science assume that it either has all the answers or at least will get them eventually

I'm not talking about an "unknown". It's a little known. Bell's theory must be true for quantum mechanics to work. However, quantum mechanics predicts that Bell's theory can be proven false, and this has been proven by experiment.

And the whole arena of quantum mechanics was invented to resolve the particle/wave dichotomy because we really wanted to not have everything come down to a contradiction.

At the end of the day genuine scientists accept that science is effective, but contradictory, and that's that. Only the believers hold onto the glib "oh well science will figure it out eventually," which is no less a profession of faith than "well, Odin just made it that way" would be.

 

[Formaldehyde]

I rest my case.

Again, it has absolutely nothing to do with BELIEF.

Again, it doesn't concern scientists in the least that science will likely NEVER know ALL the answers. Because the more that is learned the more there is to be discovered. And there is invariably new data which is found that completely negates or requires extensive modification of existing theories.

 

[bhavv]

At the end of the day genuine scientists accept that science is effective, but contradictory, and that's that. Only the believers hold onto the glib "oh well science will figure it out eventually," which is no less a profession of faith than "well, Odin just made it that way" would be.

Wrong. At the end of the day:

Religion - We have absolutely no clue how something happened therefore god did it!

Science - We dont know how something happened, so lets not jump to any conclusions until it can be tested via the scientific method.

 

[The_J]

And Im reading conflicting articles as to whether its '50% identical sequences'' OR just '50% identical genes'.

Because you know how these reports are and they dont know the difference.

Doesn't really matter for non-scientific reporting, since most people will not know the difference.
And in this case it'd be 50% identical genes (in case the number is right), because it cannot be 50% identical sequences, because plant genomes are a half ton bigger than mammalian genomes. (exceptions apply)

The way I always saw it though is that the majority of the genome is related to cell function and division, and mitosis / meiosis are universal to most biological life (all I think, but I could be wrong).

In that case you are .
Or depends on how you define it. e.g. cell division is a complicated thing, and things like e.g. energy generation would not fall within that definition, although it's for sure necessary for it. And cell division is pretty different between bacteria and higher organisms .

 

[bhavv]

NVM, my education lied to me.

 

[bhavv]

So study biology up to undergraduate. Learn all about mitosis, meiosis and viral replication.

Bacterial binary fission was never mentioned until I just look it up on google.

Oh hai, I know everythink about cancer, mutation, reproduction, stem cells, transplantation science, autoimmunity and allergy, pathogens and other stuff.

But WTH is binary fission? Thank you so much education!

 

[bhavv]

This is just like how I never knew what the holocaust was until age 21, because the entire thing was skipped out of pre GCSE history classes. People tell me I must have simply not paid attention / forgot it.

I WAS MOST ATTENTIVE PUPIL WITH MY HAND RAISED TO ANSWER ALL THE QUESTIONS ALL THE TIME AND I WAS TOP OF THE SCIENCE AND MUSIC CLASSES!

 

[Arakhor]

Obligatory MinuteEarth video:


Link to video.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Because we know from geology that life has gotten more complex over millions of years?

Or did god hide fossils to fool us all?

What does geology have to do with it? It's paleontologists who study fossils.

 

[Borachio]

This is a very broad generalization. I cannot claim to have tasted enough people to support this conclusion.

I eat quite a lot of bananas. But I can't say I've yet tasted enough of them to know whether they taste like people.

Consensus has it, though, that most things taste a bit like chicken. Even chicken.

 

[classical_hero]

If you study biology at all (which is required for all middle school kids in the US), I really don't see how anybody could not come to the inescapable conclusion that every living thing evolved from single cell organisms. All the clues are there. You just have to have an open mind.

You can't rule out similar design as a factor for this, since reusing design from other things is often how things work. You don't have to re-invent the wheel every time.

 

[Borachio]

This is just like how I never knew what the holocaust was until age 21, because the entire thing was skipped out of pre GCSE history classes. People tell me I must have simply not paid attention / forgot it.

I first learned about the holocaust when someone (I think it was my mother) gave me a book by Kitty Hart, saying "you should read this". I was 14, iirc.

I didn't know what it was at all! I thought at first it was some kind of perverse science fiction story, as I was reading a lot of SF at the time.

 

[Gary Childress]

Splitting this from the evolution thread so it gets more discussion:

'The genes of organisms that look very different are surprisingly similar. For example, human DNA sequences are over 95% identical to chimpanzee sequences and around 50% identical to banana sequences.'

http://www.nhm.ac.uk/nature-online/evolution/what-is-the-evidence/morphology/dna-molecules/

This really supports the idea of a singular organism from which all other life evolved.

Unfortunately though, we do not taste like bananas

We are all descended from the very first banana to crawl out of the primordial goo. Either that or the great holy banana created us all in its image.

 

[Borachio]

Interestingly enough cultivated bananas reproduce asexually. And they simply don't have any seeds.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Again, it has absolutely nothing to do with BELIEF.

Again, it doesn't concern scientists in the least that science will likely NEVER know ALL the answers. Because the more that is learned the more there is to be discovered. And there is invariably new data which is found that completely negates or requires extensive modification of existing theories.

You should pass this on to the physicists who have used Bell's theory to disprove Bell's theory. I'm sure they would be comforted by your whatever you choose to call it that is not belief in them.

You could even throw in your opinion on which of the assumptions of Bell's theory is inaccurate.

A) There is an objective reality.
B) Reproducible experimental evidence is a valid predictor of future results of the same experiment.

In short, either the sun may not be real at all, or it may in fact not rise in the east tomorrow just because it always has before.

I find it hysterically funny, once again, to be lectured about science by someone who's idea of presentation of evidence is to repeat themselves as if I am hard of hearing. You can say AGAIN as many times and as loudly as you want and all it does is demonstrate that in defense of science you abandon it.

 

[Formaldehyde]

What does geology have to do with it? It's paleontologists who study fossils.

Dating Rocks and Fossils Using Geologic Methods

I find it hysterically funny, once again, to be lectured about science by someone who's idea of presentation of evidence is to repeat themselves as if I am hard of hearing. You can say AGAIN as many times and as loudly as you want and all it does is demonstrate that in defense of science you abandon it.

This from the person who alleged that science was based on belief much like religion. That his own imaginary entity offered just as much "proof" as science does because I could not disprove it.

When y6u decide to offer something other than the same arguments used by creationists and fundamentalists to absurdly try to dispute science and the scientific method because they feel threatened by it, let me know.

 

[Gary Childress]

It is not our place to question the great holy banana. Nor to question geologists who study fossils (nor paleontologists nor even ontologists with sunburns).

Sorry couldn't resist the spirit of this thread. You may carry on the debate now.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

When y6u decide to offer something other than the same arguments used by creationists and fundamentalists to absurdly try to dispute science and the scientific method because they feel threatened by it, let me know.

Okay, that's too hilarious! When I said that I normally use the Hermann truism when I feel like being snotty, who do you think it would be that I feel like being snotty to?

You are so wrapped up in defending science like it is some sort of creed that you take something designed to irritate creationists as an argument a creationist would USE. THAT is actually beyond hilarious and into downright clownery. Yes, I made that word up as existing words are inadequate.

So, let's get back to the simultaneous proof/disproof of Bell's theory and the current state of science. Do you favor the sun may not rise in the east tomorrow, as experiments have now verified that a reproducible experimental outcome is not a reliable predictor of future outcomes of the same experiment? Or do you favor that the sun will continue to meet experimentally derived expectations by rising in the east yet again, but has no objective reality so in the absence of some undefinable "conscious observer" existing outside of reality (and absolutely smacking of Hermann...errrrr...god....er, maybe Odin) it isn't even there?