Talk:Banana fallacy
Contents |
[edit] To what extent
have bananas been developed under human intervention to fit the banana argument?
And what about kiwi fruit (fit nicely in the hand, quarter them, eat the contents and dispose of the wrappers tidily); peanuts and pistachios (small, easily peeled, high in nutrients, biodegradable wrappers) and green branched tapioca? 82.44.143.26 (talk) 16:45, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
- No, not that your question makes sense. Zero (talk) 17:04, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
- Writing in a hurry (library time limits etc) - could be referring to the kiwi etc fallacy. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 17:27, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
[edit] Disproof of the 'fruit designed for human consumption' argument
The fruiting bodies of are Amanita bisporigera, A. phalloides and related species.
And possibly durians. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 16:04, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
- I'm having a hard time determining what you'd like to be edited from the article. Could you try again? Zero (talk) 16:20, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
- Two mushrooms which are #decidedly not# for human consumption.
Is the banana fallacy bananas? 82.44.143.26 (talk) 16:01, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
[edit] I just came here to say...
Whoever put the dancing banana in this article deserves a gold star.— Unsigned, by: 96.228.170.213 / talk 06:04, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
[edit] Tabs
Ah, but the lack of tabs on other foods doesn't disprove that god made bananas for his creations, merely that god doesn't intend for you to ever eat anything but bananas. Of course once you realize this you should also realize that adam and steve were chimpanzees. — Unsigned, by: 24.149.28.113 / talk 08:20, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
[edit] Wild cats
Not an editor here and unfamiliar with the rules and usual ways of doing things, so I'm just throwing this out for whoever wants to use it.
The other problem with Comfort's example of the domesticated cat is that we didn't breed them, at least not until recently. Cats were self-domesticating. How that worked is not exactly known, but it's not difficult to develop a plausible hypothesis. With the agricultural revolution came cereal storage, which attracted rodents, and wild cats were attracted by the plentiful prey. The first cats would have been as shy of humans as non-socialized domestic cats still are, but once a kitten was adopted by a human family it would have grown up socialized, and domestication is on its way.
Until relatively recently, cats were not bred, but were allowed to breed themselves as "barn cats" even when individuals may have been taken in as housecats and particularly beloved pets. (We find a cat buried alongside a human as long as 9500 years ago. As this was on the island of Cyprus, cats must have been brought in deliberately by human settlers.) The originals of the various breeds were simply local varieties that had developed on their own via isolation, founder effect, and genetic drift. I've been unable to find any reference to deliberate breeding of cats any earlier than the mid-19th century.
So if God did give people the knowledge about how to do this with cats, he withheld it until after we'd already figured out how to breed traits into a whole bunch of other things. Including bananas. 192.91.173.42 (talk) 04:15, 29 January 2015 (UTC)