Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Uh Oh Guys!

Rate this topic


LiberTodd

Recommended Posts

Here is a hilarious response to this absurdity from Richard Wiseman http://www.randi.org/joom/swift/swift-july-4-2008.html

This argument is of such dubious quality that it could very easily be mistaken for a parody, and hardly merits serious discussion at all. However, in the rare instance that you come across a creationist sufficiently starry-eyed to fall for it, then it could be helpful to keep in mind some of the problems of the argument:

In a wild banana, note the black, rock-hard seeds. Since wild bananas are inedible by humans and contain such large seeds, this fact would would appear to be contrary to the belief that bananas were designed with humans in mind. Seedless bananas, while preferred by humans, are useless to the banana plant, which, being sterile, has to be artificially cultivated by vegetative cloning (i.e. taking cuttings).

Cultivated bananas were not designed by cosmic intervention, but were produced by humans using artificial selection. Bananas are one of the first fruits domesticated and cultivated by human beings a little more than 7,000 years ago. Humans have bred bananas selectively for smaller seeds and a tastier banana, in much the same way we have cultivated seedless grapes and watermelons.

The modern banana is the result of a well-documented chance mutation during the nineteenth century. Those first bananas that people knew in antiquity were not sweet like the bananas we know today, but were cooking bananas or plantain bananas with a starchy taste and composition. The bright yellow bananas that we know today were discovered as a mutation from the plantain banana by a Jamaican, Jean François Poujot, in the year 1836. He found this hybrid mutation growing in his banana tree plantation with a sweet flavor and a yellow color – instead of green or red, and not requiring cooking like the plantain banana. The rapid establishment of this new exotic fruit was welcomed worldwide, and it was massively grown for world markets.

If this argument were really given serious consideration, then it is really a wonder why many other edible fruits and seeds have thorns or tough husks. These are perfectly reasonable features to expect as a product of evolution, but quite incredibly awkward when considering them as products of divine design.

As is typical with design arguments, it is unjustifiably anthropocentric. In particular, as much as the colors of a banana would serve as an indicator of its inner content to humans, it very likely served as an indicator to animals. In this case, the colors of the banana are a product of evolution, not foresight into future human consumption. In nature, it is beneficial for soft fruits with tough seeds (like the wild banana) to have an attractive exterior. This encourages animals to eat them, spread their seeds and allow the fruit to reproduce (see our main article on Means of Dispersal for more information). This would indicate that the fruit's appearance is nothing more than natural selection at work, rather than a divine designer trying to impress us with shiny surfaces.

Further anthropocentric bias is the remark that bananas are shaped for the human hand, and shaped for the human mouth. There is no reason to believe that the banana is intended for human mouths and hands any more than it is intended for monkey mouths and hands.

Much of the cited evidence for design are superfluous, such as pointing out that the banana has a biodegradable wrapper. What makes the banana any more special than the billions of other organism wrappers that biodegrade in nature?

The comparison between soda cans and bananas is a false analogy. The theory of evolution does not address the origins of things that do not reproduce.

There is an amazing array of things much more wonderful and complex than a soda can, for which we need not assume any intelligent design or purpose. They all share at least this property: a billion-year evolutionary heritage. Lacking this, the soda can does not belong in this class, and we must admit another explanation.

And finally, for those with a mind in the gutter, the argument is ripe (no pun intended) for parody value. The author of GodlessBastard.com has put together a telling parody about the banana fruit as a perfectly-engineered sex toy.

Edited by KevinDW78
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The funny thing is, monkeys actually eat bananas from the other end, not from the 'easy peel' peg end.

It's just a human thing to hold onto that tip and peel it back - as that quoted article states, the problem with arguments like these is their complete ignorance of their own anthropomorphism (and not just in arguments to do with proofs of Gods, but things like 'Chimps can hold concepts' or 'My cat Suzy has volition because it likes Whiskers over Iams'.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kirk Cameron and the Divine Banana are old hat. They also did one on peanut butter - the fact that new life doesn't evolve inside peanut butter jars proves god exists. They've been around the Internets for a while now.

~Q

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would that mean that god was mad at us when he invented the coconut? Ever tried to get into one of those suckers with your bare hands.

He was trying to jump-start our discovery of bowling, God's favorite sport. I mean, that's what thunder is, right? God going bowling.

02-how-to-open-coconuts.jpg

bowling-ball.jpg

There's no way I can be wrong, the evidence is clear.

Edited by LiberTodd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd like to see creationists explain the durian.

Durio_kutej_F_070203_ime.jpg

Ah yes! The durian! A fruit that MUST have been made by the Creator! I mean, with it's very practical carrying case (be careful, they're sharp!) and looking at how simple it is to open (similar to a zip-lock bag), how can there NOT be a God?

Edited by NickS
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Watch this video for a cheap laugh:

http://www.godtube.com/view_video.php?view...529da2f749154fc

We were meant to eat food because carrots resemble human eyes, and avacatos have wombs like a woman.

damn.... I was so waiting for the "banana - you know what" connection.... :)

btw.. it seems like ID'ers and 9/11 conspiracy theorists use the same line of reasoning:

1) Make assumption out of your ass

2) Decide to find "evidence" for your assumption

3) Find irrelevant snippets of facts from the first topic(shape of fruits, random quote from some arbitrary person)

4) Find a way to make a connection between no.3 and the thing you are trying to prove(intelligent design, 9/11 was an inside job) NOTE! The connection does NOT have to be in any way relevant!

5) Disregard absolutely everything that proves that your assumption is wrong

6) Repeat no.5

7) Confirm your assumption as true

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...