.. Bananas are living.

You're either not listening very well, or you're lying. Take your pick.

I know totally silly isn't it sometimes? But, many do really believe that evolution is the way. Even evolutionary creationism is out there. I've read only two books written 20 years apart which dispute evolution and evolutionary creationism. Well 3 okay, the Bible, but I am beginning to think that disputing and arguing is a waste of time. Better to use scripture to straighten out the questions that attack our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and His word. Arguing is what people want sometimes. They like the confusion it causes and the time prescious time it comsumes. Remember WWJD!

Okay. First of all, bananas are living. They come from a plant. Do you know what plants are? ALIVE. Second, I have no idea what 'evoloution' is. Maybe learn how to spell evolution before you argue against it, huh? Second, wtf. No decent evolutionary biologist will say "a dog evolved from a banana." or that a dog and a banana have the same DNA. That is what you said, right? A dog and a banana have the same DNA.... *sigh*. Maybe this is so inaccurate because it is from SERMON AUDIO.COM. Before you post any more silly questions, go to this link; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_evolution It is a basic overview of what evolution actually is (and how to spell it). Read the article in its entirety. Then you can come back and ask questions about it. Seriously, how do you think you can argue against something without knowing what it is? Simple answer; you can't do it without looking like a fool, as you have just demonstrated.

I just tried to peel a dog. Didn't go well.

IF the evolution proponent is saying that then they need shooting (metaphorically that is). I find it hard to believe that anyone who has even touched on the topic would say those things unless they were being deliberately misleading or had serious presentation skill deficiencies. Indeed I find it, quite literally, incredible. Dogs and bananas share genetic elements this much is true. However they don't have 'the same' genes. There is a large portion of the genes in both that overlaps but no way are they the same. So that's simply incorrect. The point is that there is a great deal of shared genes in all living creatures to a greater or lesser extent depending upon how closely related they are. Of course dna is shared in the sense that all genes are constructed from the same four basic elements (GATC) so in that sense their DNA is 'the same' but their genes are most certainly not equivalent. Now did dogs evolve from bananas? Again that anyone that knows anything about evolution would state this is simply baffling. It's like saying human beings evolved from monkeys. It is a gross misrepresentation of the facts. Bananas and dogs certainly share a common ancestor but modern bananas and modern dogs are just as 'evolved' as each other more or less. They are distant cousins if you will not parent and child to use familial analogies. Just as humans and apes are, although in this case the common ancestor is a much more recent event. Just as Caucasian Americans are to Caucasian Europeans although again the common ancestors are again a much more recent occurrence in this case than either of the previous examples. So bananas and dogs are distant relations (very distant) not linear relations. Finally the claim that animals evolved from non living things appears to be separate discussion from the previous two elements unless one believes bananas to be non living, which is again obvious bunkum and in light of what I have said above, irrelevant bunkum at that. Evolution doesn't state that life evolved from non life. It shows how different life forms evolved from previous life forms. I hesitate to use the phrase "complex from simple" as this is again a bit misleading but it is a good way to think about it to begin with. The origins of life are dealt with under another field namely Abiogenesis and not evolution. Evolution deals with the development of life once it got here. So it seems pretty odd that anyone who knows anything about the subject would make the claims you have listed. It sounds more like the sort of thing Kent Hovind et al would trot out. If they are I suggest going to someone that knows a bit more about the subject. I'm trained as a physicist and mathematician and even I know that these claims are utter nonsense and blatant misrepresentations of evolutionary theory. EDIT: to clear up some possible confucion between dna and genes.

My thoughts: This is HORRIBLE. How can those people fill the minds of others with such bullshit? The stuff you're listening is creationist propaganda. No evolution teacher would say such stuff. Here is what evolution is all about, and what evidence there is to support it: It’s a lot but I really encourage you to take it seriously and read it thoroughly. It's a very interesting subject, in my opinion the most important scientific idea ever. And even if you won't agree with it, you should want to know what exactly you're disagreeing with. Let’s start with how science works, the scientific method. 1. Observations. The phenomenon that needs to be explained is observed, quantitative data is collected, some experiments are made and measurements are taken... 2. Hypothesis. The data is analyzed and interpreted. Based on this, the scientist comes up with an intelligent guess that explains the phenomenon and the data. A hypothesis is what you call ‘theory’ in ‘everyday language’. Hypotheses should be falsifiable, otherwise they are discarded as invalid. 3. Experiments. After a hypothesis has been formulated, it is tested with experiments. Based on the hypothesis, the scientist makes predictions, then performs experiments that should result as predicted. There are also experiments that try to proof the hypothesis wrong, each part of it is tested. Only if a hypothesis stands up to all those tests, and if enough further evidence is gathered, the hypothesis eventually becomes: 4. Theory. A scientific theory is not the same as the word ‘theory’ in ‘everyday language’. A scientific theory is based on so much evidence that it is considered fact. It has stood up to rigorous testing for centuries. Scientific theories include the theory of relativity, theory of electromagnetism and the theory of evolution. 5. Law. Absolute phenomena that can be described by math eventually become ‘a law’. Gravity is a law for example, apples always fall down on earth, and one can calculate exactly how fast this happens. Evolution for example can’t become a law, because you cannot predict mathematically exactly what will happen. Analogy: You know that seeds grow into trees, yet you can’t predict the exact height and form of a tree by looking at the seed. Evolution is a scientific theory, it’s the very foundation of biology and literally 99.8 percent of biologists accept it as fact. More historians deny the holocaust than biologists deny evolution. But I’m sure you aren’t impressed by such figures, it’s better to think for yourself, so I will later present you the evidence for evolution. First I want to define it though, and explain how it works: Evolution is the explanation for the diversity of life. It states that all organisms on earth evolved from a common ancestor (primitive, one-celled organism that lived about 3.5 billion years ago). So note that evolution doesn’t say how the first self-replicating entity got there. It starts with it already existing. By the way, that’s the reasons why many Christians see evolution as the way god ‘created’ life. As his tool. They then claim that god created the first self-replicating thing. In Europe, the majority of Christians actually accept evolution, the whole Catholic Church for example does, and they are known to be pretty conservative. Anyways, I don’t agree with this view that god created the first replicator, but I’m glad those Christians at least acknowledge science. In the field of the origin of life, there is no scientific theory, only a couple hypotheses, so believing that god did it doesn’t contradict clear evidence. Back to evolution: How does it work? Evolution happens because animals reproduce, somehow (be it sexual reproduction or bacteria who divide themselves) they make copies of themselves. The copies are however not 100% identical. Due to shuffling of the genes and random mutations (caused by cosmic rays, malfunctions in the cells etc), the DNA sequences of parent and child vary. The individual with the best genes for living long and reproducing often passes on more of its fair share of genes to the next generation, therefore beneficial genes accumulate in the gene pool. As time goes on, more and more changes improve the adaptation of the species, and the species gradually changes appearance, if this is good for survival. If the environment stays the same, no significant evolution happens, because no small mutations are possible that would improve the individual at making a living. A note about mutations: Mutations can just be changes in letters of DNA, sometimes also copying errors of whole genes or chromosomes, they sometimes get deleted or duplicated. In ‘everyday language’, mutation is linked to freaky things like cows with tree heads or so. Of course, that would be a mutation, but also neutral, very small changes in DNA that don’t even get translated into proteins (and therefore don’t have an effect at all) or actually beneficial changes are called mutations. Mutations are random, and since animals are already very well adapted to the environment they live in, most mutations are harmful. However, due to statistics, some mutations are beneficial, and those are the ones that prosper because of natural selection. The bad mutations are wiped out over time, the good ones accumulate. Good and bad of course being relative. Evolution has no long-term goal, no foresight. Something that helps a species survive might lead them to extinction some million years later. It’s important to get an impression of the time that is involved in evolution. Creationists like to claim that ‘macro evolution’ (A term invented by creationists defined as evolution from one species into another NEW species) has never been observed. Actually, it has been observed in bacteria, but that’s the only place where you can find it because bacteria reproduce at a very fast rate and therefore there are many chances for mutations to happen and accumulate. http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html Creationists then say ‘well it’s still a bacteria, it didn’t turn into a dog’. That’s clearly retarded, evolution doesn’t magically change species into other existing species! Bacteria evolved into a new kind of bacteria, another bacteria that has never existed before. Evolution started 3.5 billion years ago, and up to like 800 million years ago, there was nothing else than bacteria on earth. Then a watershed event happened, some one-celled organism ganged up to form colonies, the colonies evolved and became multicellular organisms. This new blueprint was the foundation for growth, systems of billions of cells slowly emerged, and about 500 million years ago the first water organisms that fossilized evolved. Again, all life has a common ancestor, and every organism on earth has had the exact same time to ‘evolve’. Humans did NOT evolve out of chimpanzees or gorillas, humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor (lived 6 million years ago). Those human-chimp ancestors must have become geographically separated about 6 million years ago. It’s likely that a small population of those animals got isolated and eventually evolved into humans, humans changed more than chimps (they look more different from gorillas and other great apes than chimps do). But the rest of that group evolved too, and eventually became the modern chimps (actually there was another split about 2-3 million years ago, splitting the group into chimps and bonobos. So chimps and bonobos are equally closely related to us. The human line split too, the Neanderthal people are actually not our direct ancestors, they split apart from our line somewhat later. Human evolution went on from Australopithecus (3 sub-species, rhobustus, afarensis and africanus are distinguished) to Homo habilis, Homo ergaster and eventually to us, Homo sapiens (150000 years ago). A note on species: Just because we give them different names doesn’t mean that they are fundamentally different. The term species is human-made, animals are defined into different species when they cannot interbreed successfully. The apparent paradox of ‘there had to be a Homo ergaster giving birth to a Homo sapiens’ is no real paradox. Parents always look similar to their children, and changes in evolution were always very small and gradual. There was never a generation that couldn’t reproduce with the previous generation, only with hindsight we define fossils into different species when there clearly is a lot of time and evolution between them. Species keep changing, they are not set in stone. SOME EVIDENCE FOR EVOLUTION: A: I would say the strongest evidence is molecular evidence. Humans, and all the other mammals, have still genes (altough they aren't being used, they are just in our DNA) that are relicts from our ancient ancestors. We have genes that were useful for survival in the oceans. Whales, mammals that went back into the water, have two sets of genes for surviving in the oceans, the first from their ancestors, the second set is newer from the time when their ancestors went to make a living in the water again. Another piece of evidence going into this is geographical distribution. The animals living on the same continents are generally closer related to each other. (A creationist migh argue that 'god used the same blueprint for similar climates'. This argument can refuted by pointing out that animals that live in similar climate, but on different parts of the world, are not closely related. And sometimes, DNA of an organism is invaded by viral DNA. Some retroviruses can copy themself into the genome of organisms. This happened lots of time in all kinds of species. Now here comes the thing: Different species have EXACTLY the SAME viral DNA in EXACTLY the SAME PLACES on the chromosomes. This clearly shows that those different species evolved from a common ancestor, or how else would you account for those invasions? Two exact same viruses invading at the exact same time independantly? This several times among all kinds of different species? B: Other great evidence is 'evolution in action'. We all know that dogs came from wolves through artificial selection (humans chose the tamest wolves to breed from). Dogs and wolves are still the same general species (they can still interbreed, this is the definition of species), but they are of different races (the human 'races' are by the way not the same thing as dog races. Racism has no foundation in genetics, because blacks and whites have way more things in common than dogs have with wolves). But even though they are still canids (biological term for dogs, wolves, dingos and coyotes), there is a whole lot of diversity. And think about it, this diversity came about in 10'000 years (that's when the 'neolithic revolution' took place, the time when homo sapiens (us, a species belonging to the family of the great apes) started with agriculture. Evolution is happening since more than 3.5 billion years. This is a LOT of time, and you can imagine how much anatomical change happens in this time. Another example of evolution in action is the following link. Scientists managed to observe the evolution of a different trait in a bacteria, that normally distinguishes this kind of bacteria from others. A new species has evolved: http://www.newscientist.com/.../...t-in-the-lab.html Another example are the so-called ring species. They are modern animals living in a huge ring. Two different species next to each other (they can't interbreed), but a line of gradual, succesful interbreedings between the animals can be found, that goes around in a ring, until it reaches the other species. This shows speciation in action. Normally, the intermediates are dead, but in the special cases of ring species, we can look at them and study them. Here an example of a ring species, two types of salamander: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/05/2/l_052_05.html A circle of intermediate species, all there for people to study. It starts with one species, and ends with a different species that is unable to reprdoce with the other. That's 'macro-evolution', one species evolved into another species. C: Another good prove of evolution are so-called 'mistakes of design'. A very good example is the (apparent) 'design' of flatfishes. They evolved from ancestors that started to lay sidewards on the ground (for some reason this gave them benefits of surviving). So they could only see with one eye. The other eye wandered around the skull over evolutionary time. There are even 'transition fossils' of this kind of evolution. The head now looks extremely distorted, and no sane designer would desing such a fish. He would do it in the way rays are shaped. By the way, rays went through a similar process, but they didn't have to distort their skulls, because they were already flat to begin with, while the other types of flatfish evolved from an 0-shaped ancestor. Here's a link http://dsc.discovery.com/.../...sh-evolution.html Other 'mistakes of design' include the human eye (a very ironic example, since humans are supposed to be the crown of god's creation). The human eye has a blind spot, because the nerves of the eye start on the wrong side, so they have to leave the eye again through the blind spot, this is why one doesn't see with this particular spot in the eye. Examples of other animal's eyes (not related to mammals, the eye (many different kinds of eyes actually) evolved about 40 times INDEPENDENTLY!) I think those animals I mean are some kinds of squids)show that it could have been done otherwise. Evolution can't use magic, it is based on adaptations of ALREADY EXISTING structures. Other mistakes of design are the now useless relicts of our evolutionary past (human tailbone, leg-bones of whales, appendix etc.). D: And last but not least, there is the fossil record. The fossil record is much more complete than creationists like to claim. Scientists have fossil from every major phylum-changes. (meaning fish-amphibia, amphibia-reptilia, reptilia-mammal, reptilia-birds). Note that mammals aren't 'higher animals' than fishes. Every living organism has had the same time to evolve. They both started from the same ancestor, and they both kept evolving all those billions of years. This is the reason humans DID NOT evolve from monkeys, the evolved from ape-like ancestors (which were earlier monkey-like ancestors). Those ape like ancestors were geographically separated (in case of human and chimpanzees, this was about 6 million years ago), and since then the hominids evolved (from ardipithecus, to different forms of australopithecus to homo habilis, to home erectus and eventually to homo sapiens). In the same time, the rest of the ancestor population kept evolving and the 'end' product (evolution is still happening, it's just way too slow as that we could observe it with big animals that don't reproduce often) are the chimpanzees (and bonobos which are equally close related with us, this means a population of chimpanzee ancestors split up and became both bonobs and chimps). Science doesn't work in a single line. It's a huge net of interrelated theories and observations. Evolution explains so many phenomena, it can't be wrong because it fits so well. "Without evolution, biology is a collection of miscellaneous facts.... With evolution, a great light breaks through into the deepest recesses, into every corner, of the science of life. You understand not only what is, but why." -Richard Dawkins

I'm not going to insult your intelligence by suggesting you actually BELIEVE what you just said...

Kent Hovind vs Evolution The first 20 minutes . Kent Hovind: Evolution is a religion. . Religion: A belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe. . Evolution: A change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift. . Those are not the sme thing. Evolution claims no supernatural being. Nor does it claim a creator, or governor of the universe. . Lie #1 debunked. . Kent Hovind: Teaching Evolution is the same unethical experimentation on people. . The argument made was that teachers and doctors are held accountable to the public in how they teach/opperate. True, to a point. However the public doesn't get to choose how to conduct a surgery because the public at large has no medical expertise. Therefore they're not allowed to dictate surgical policy. Same thing for schools. The general publics lack of understanding prevents them from being able to make intelligent decissions. . Half truth #1 debunked. . Kent Hovind: Dogs evolved from rocks . No they didnt. But to say Evolution claims they did is not only an OBVIOUS lie, but a totally ridiculous statement. . Lie #2 debunked. . Kent Hovind: No one has ever seen any kind of animal produce another kind of animal . Incorrect. Not only have we seen evolution occure in bacteria in the lab, proving evolution occurs. We can see offspring from closely biologically related animals. Such as a donkey and a horse mating and bearing a mule. . Lie #3 debunked. . So 1/3 of the way through and we see that he's told 3 lies and 1 mis-truth. Let continue on shall we. . Kent Hovind: Change is limited. . True change IS limited. However each change compounds on other changes. And makes for huge changes. . Half truth #2 is debunked. . Kent Hovind: Time is a supernatural power . Really? Do I even need to debunk that garbage? . Lie #4 doesn't deserve to be repeated let alone debunked . Kent Hovind: Evolution is chance . Evolution is NOT chance. It is surival of the fittest. Those that are better suited to their environment survive while those that aren't don't. Hence the continuation of the "naturally selcted" animals. . Lie #5 Debunked . Kent Hovind: Library books in America are all in english that proves intelligent design. . The problem with this theory is that in Spain all the library books are in spanish. So therefore there must be 2 gods? No. Just because we sort things by our understanding doesn't mean that they were designed intelligentlly. Give a money an english type writer and he'll produce non-sense, but that non-sense will be in english. . Lie #6 debunked . Kent Hovind: Africa was shrunk 20% to fit panega theory . When you have millions of years of volcanic activity you get land mass growth. Look at Hiwaii, it grows something like 2 inches a year. . Lie #7 debunked . Kent Hovind(paraphrased): Evolution denys intelligent imput, that makes it chance, and chance can't be responsible for everything. . Yes technically it does. However that doesn't A mean that chance can't have done it, B Evolutiton claims chance did it. We've already covered that Evolution isn't chance. . Half truth #3 debunked At this point I felt my brain melting so I stopped listening to his idiocy. I was barely half way through. So assuming a constant amount of lies and half truths, he lied 14 times and told 6 half truths. In one hour that's an average one lie every 4 minutes and one half truth every 10 minutes. That's a pretty sad average. . Oh and just as a F*** YOU. . Kent Hovind: Natural selection happens! 20:20-20:40 . Please enjoy your BULLSH!T arguments.

I'm calling shenanigans. No biology student, let alone an "evolution teacher" would make such a claim. The term term "evolution" itself makes your question sound dubious since no school that I know of has a "Department of Evolution" . The theory of evolution is taught in Biology, Anthropology and several other scientific disciplines but I have yet to meet an "evolution teacher". Also, a banana is a living thing. You should really get a better grasp of science before discussing it.

I know for a fact that you do not have an evolution teacher and you are just making up this question while you know the answer. You are not even in school!! You are just trying to get people to agree with your opinion by making a biased question and then argue with those who do not agree with you. Perhaps your child has a personal evolution teacher? Personally, I think evolution is entirely illogical and one of Louis Pasteur's experiments in the 1800's proved that maggots spontaneously did not spring from rotten meat. He disproved spontaneous generation, which is not the same thing as evolution, even though I do think that evolution is a theory that ignores many details to suit its own agenda.

THANK YOU! This site is awesome. I'm going to use some of the more bizarre sermons for sampling purposes for music projects.

Hate to burst your bubble but Bananas come from the banana plant and that's living.

Time to back away from the site and take the dog for a walk. Both dog and banana are organic in nature. FYI.

If you really want to learn about the scientific basis for biological evolution, you should seek scientific sources. Instead, you list your source as sermon- something. Trying to learn biology from a sermon is as silly as trying to learn religion from a biologist. Whom do you think you're kidding? :)

Or it could be that once God came up with a good plan for a cell, he stuck with it. That is where most of the similarities lie.

God's existence cannot be proven or disproven. Therefore it should be accepted that God may exist. I am unsuscribing. Have fun butting heads.

It sounds like that "teacher" was either a stoner, a crackpot, or a plant by the religious fanatics to attempt to undermine the opposition.

Maybe the teacher has a cousin that is a banana and has a biased reason for saying that.

Yeh, he is right if you go back far enough, but it's abit of a retarded example!

1.1 Dogs did not evolve from bananas. If you go back far enough.. (Way Back, before plants and animals had evolved separately from each other) they will have a common ancestor just as humans have a common ancestor with monkeys and all other life forms. your teacher has used a bad example and if he said dogs evolved from bananas he/she is wrong and needs to read up some more on the subject. Edit I have just clocked that this is a religious teaching and it makes total sense that they would deliberately miss-interpit the theory of evolution in an attempt to ridicule it. Typical if you as me. Look for you knowledge elsewhere and avoid being feed this rubbish by your Christian teachers

No one who understands even the most basic aspects of evolution would "teach" that dogs evolved from bananas. That "teacher" is either a shill and a liar or a completely ignorant idiot. I'm trying to find the particular sermon without success.

Sounds like a slip up.

And you God Gobbers wonder why no one can take you seriously. You continue to lie left and right.

Let's just go this far. It's too inane to go any further. A dog and a banana do not have the same dna. Deoxyriboneucleic acid is not found in bananas at all.

Are you? Or are you listening to a teacher in a private school that is teaching about evolution for the sole purpose of turning people away from it? If it's a public school teacher then that person should be fired because he/she obviously has no clue.   You say you are listening to it on sermonaudio.com. I rest my case.   Dogs did not evolve from bananas but you DO know that both are living things, right?