How do atheists explain…

[WakataDreamer]

Watch video before posting, please. In all serious, how do atheists explain the fact that many things on Earth evolved to be beneficial/useful to man, even if this would not increase their survival rates, and therefore not be in any way evolutionarily selected for? Yes, I understand that in some things this would increase the want of humans to cultivate it, increasing its survival rate and likelihood of having the human-beneficial trait passed on, but how do atheists explain things like plants that contain cancer cures in remote parts of Madagascar where man has never wandered? How do you explain something like aloe vera, which heals humans, and soothes digestive illnesses such as heartburn? Humans would note its usefulness and use it, but they did not cultivate it. This trait that was beneficial to human life emerged on its own. Is that all just coincidence, that there are so many plants like this that are beneficial to humans but would not have gained from having this trait? I’m seriously asking here. I’m curious. How do atheists/other non-followers of intelligent design explain that stuff?

[Bearsy]

Are you retarded? Man evolved around the things that are beneficial to us, not the other way around.

[Photolysis]

In all serious, how do atheists explain the fact that many things on Earth evolved to be beneficial/useful to man, even if this would not increase their survival rates, and therefore not be in any way evolutionarily selected for? That's an assumption. A very large one actually. And I don't see any basis to make that claim; what evidence have you got that all these chemicals are not useful in some way (you make the claim therefore it's up to you to prove it, not for everyone else to prove they all have a use or your argument wins by default)? Also you forget that in the search for chemicals in plants that cure diseases, the huge amount that are looked at and discarded because they don't work. Coincidence is a perfectly satisfactory explanation in certain cases. This trait that was beneficial to human life emerged on its own. Is that all just coincidence, that there are so many plants like this that are beneficial to humans but would not have gained from having this trait? I’m seriously asking here. I’m curious. How do atheists/other non-followers of intelligent design explain that stuff? In some cases, no it's not a coincidence at all. Example: penicillin. It's very useful to the host organism because it allows it to kill bacteria that would compete with it for resources, and it's no coincidence helps us with bacterial infections as well. But the fact that it is useful to humans as well is a complete byproduct. Another drug, caffeine, for another example, acts as a mild stimulant in humans, yet for the originating plants, it actually serves as a pesticide. The fact that it can be used as a stimulant is a coincidence. It's evolution was most definitely not though, for hopefully obvious reasons.

[Mes Tarrant]

Are you retarded? Man evolved around the things that are beneficial to us, not the other way around. QFT.

[Universal Mind]

The bananas we buy at the grocery store were deliberately shaped by scientists over time. It was a forced evolution. Even if that were not the case, it could be the result of evolution due to primates' picking the easiest to hold bananas for millions of years. How do you explain how something infinitely powerful, intelligent, and knowing just happened by itself? You are probably going to say he has always been, but I am asking what is at the root of such a phenomenon. Is there any rhyme or reason to it, or is it just a crazy happenstance WTF?

[DuB]

it could be the result of evolution due to primates' picking the easiest to hold bananas for millions of years. An excellent point, and I just want to expand on this a little. In point of fact, it is extremely beneficial (in evolutionary terms) for bananas to be appealing for human consumption. This appeal has led to bananas being cultivated by humans for as long as 10,000 years. Even before the age of agriculture, how do you think banana seeds are spread? Humans likely played a major role in this. It's no accident that many plants bear delicious fruit - they depend on vertebrates to eat the fruit and ultimately cause the seeds within to be distributed. So regarding Elis's statement about man evolving around what is beneficial for them - I would say that it is not quite so simple. In the particular case of bananas, I would even argue that the opposite is true. We omnivorous humans have a a huge variety of foods available for us to eat, and our evolutionary course was probably not affected by the presence or absence of bananas - especially considering that bananas are only indigenous to a few regions. Bananas, on the other hand, probably owe a great deal to humans, especially considering how ubiquitous we are. We likely had a profound effect on their evolution. The main point here is that this so-called "atheist nightmare" is actually easily accounted for by evolutionary theory - perhaps even bolstered by it. Edit: I just realized that I've been hasty in reading the OP and only responded to the initial portion of it (about bananas). I apologize, but hopefully you got some insight from the part about spreading seeds. I'll try to think of more to say in a little bit .

[DuB]

On second inspection, it looks like Photolysis pretty much covered it. Just wanted to add one thing... Is that all just coincidence, that there are so many plants like this that are beneficial to humans but would not have gained from having this trait? "So many"? For every plant that has a beneficial use for us, how many plants are there that have no real use whatsoever? A lot. Given the relative dearth of "beneficial" plants, I would say that coincidence is indeed, in many cases, a perfectly satisfactory explanation. It is also worth considering that for many plants, humans are not the only animal that get some benefit from it. All sorts of other animals could have exerted selective influence on a particular plant, and it could be that we only reap the benefits through our biological similarities to that selecting animal. The idea that humans must be the sole cause (and beneficiary) of these plants is a very egocentric view.

[Xei]

The bananas we buy at the grocery store were deliberately shaped by scientists over time. Scientists? I'm pretty sure it was just good old selective breeding by local farmers over the past few thousand years. Almost all crops and livestock have been formed in this way. Yes, I understand that in some things this would increase the want of humans to cultivate it, increasing its survival rate and likelihood of having the human-beneficial trait passed on, but how do atheists explain things like plants that contain cancer cures in remote parts of Madagascar where man has never wandered? How do you explain something like aloe vera, which heals humans, and soothes digestive illnesses such as heartburn? Humans would note its usefulness and use it, but they did not cultivate it. This trait that was beneficial to human life emerged on its own. Is that all just coincidence, that there are so many plants like this that are beneficial to humans but would not have gained from having this trait? I’m seriously asking here. I’m curious. How do atheists/other non-followers of intelligent design explain that stuff? To tackle the science: pretty much everything in a plant is beneficial to that plant. It's evolved that way. If it's beneficial to humans, it'll just be a coincidence. It's no more mysterious than the fact that eating some plants will harm you. Your argument is a little like saying, 'how come flint exists? It's so useful for humans to make fire'; well, there are plenty of useless rocks lying about too. Some things are useful, some aren't. To tackle the argument: in case you were arguing that there may be some kind of designer out there providing for us, your own argument destroys that idea, because there are also many bad things in the world; viruses, poisons, diseases, etcetera.

[Universal Mind]

Scientists? I'm pretty sure it was just good old selective breeding by local farmers over the past few thousand years. Almost all crops and livestock have been formed in this way. Then they have been acting as scientists.

[Taosaur]

But can science explain spitty slurpy?

[Xei]

Then they have been acting as scientists. In a sense I suppose, they observed that traits were inherented. But they weren't scientists in the colloquial sense.

[spaceexplorer]

That is the most idiotic video EVER. The Banana has been cultivated BY MAN, as someone has already said. In the same way animals we have as pets were specifically bred to fit certain needs. From Chihuahua to Great Dane. These are not NATURAL things. Of course the counter argument is... How do the non-atheists explain the Coconut. If it had been designed, then clearly it's been designed to really really piss us off. Do people seriously take utter nonsense like this video seriously? It takes all of about 1 seconds thought to realise it is really stupid, mindless thinking.

[spaceexplorer]

Watch video before posting, please. In all serious, how do atheists explain the fact that many things on Earth evolved to be beneficial/useful to man, even if this would not increase their survival rates, and therefore not be in any way evolutionarily selected for? Yes, I understand that in some things this would increase the want of humans to cultivate it, increasing its survival rate and likelihood of having the human-beneficial trait passed on, but how do atheists explain things like plants that contain cancer cures in remote parts of Madagascar where man has never wandered? How do you explain something like aloe vera, which heals humans, and soothes digestive illnesses such as heartburn? Humans would note its usefulness and use it, but they did not cultivate it. This trait that was beneficial to human life emerged on its own. Is that all just coincidence, that there are so many plants like this that are beneficial to humans but would not have gained from having this trait? I’m seriously asking here. I’m curious. How do atheists/other non-followers of intelligent design explain that stuff? Ok as for your other questions. A rock is really good for smashing open nuts, it's also good to make walls with, it's also REALLY handy for throwing at things. That does not mean rocks were designed by god so that humans can use them for these things! The fact that humans find uses for things is an example of our intelligence and curiosity! Something that religious people need to use a little more often! The benificial uses of SOME plants are coincidence based on the fact that most living things use similar chemicals for thier own natural processes. So a plant that is high in vitamin C for example... is not producing lots of vitamin C for us to then eat... but for itself! as part of its own living process. If you think God designed plants for us... just go for a walk and eat 10 random plants... make sure you have your mobile phone with you so you can call the emergency services later though! It is arrogant to the extreme to think that the entire natural world was designed for US. Do people really think this? It actually shocks me that this level of self absorbed arrogance is so common in the religious world.

[Alric]

I am surprised people are even agreeing with it. The ridges of a banana do not help in holding it. That is just silly. Our thumbs have more to do with that. I mean, people have no trouble holding an apple do they? What about a peach? People did not cultivate banana's because they are easy to hold. Nor did they get them because they get rotten and its easy to notice rotting fruit. All fruit change how it looks when it gets ripe then rots. Maybe the nightmare for people who believe in god, is the pineapple. If banana's are convent then pineapples are a pain in the butt. Of course humans cultivated pineapples too, regardless of them being a pain in the butt. Because we invented knives and we just cut them open and the shape or size of them has no effect what so ever in what we will or will not eat. Food is food. It can all be explain by coincidence and by the human ability to pick out patterns that mean nothing.

[Universal Mind]

I am surprised people are even agreeing with it. The ridges of a banana do not help in holding it. That is just silly. Our thumbs have more to do with that. I mean, people have no trouble holding an apple do they? What about a peach? Bananas are a little easier to hold than apples and peaches because bananas have ridges that correspond to finger joints, but it is not a big deal. Maybe the nightmare for people who believe in god, is the pineapple. If banana's are convent then pineapples are a pain in the butt. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4HW06Wz_R74 Now, somebody explain away THIS... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZFG5PKw504 Cat got your tongue? That's what I thought.

[spaceexplorer]

And for the sake of the original poster. This is what a wild, uncultivated banana looks like Notice it's not curved... oh and those big lumps all the way through it... they are seeds. Us humans did a good job of selective breeding to make it a more pleasant plant.

[Alric]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4HW06Wz_R74 That was pretty funny. Especially to find out he was thinking the exactly the same thing I was. Its because its so obvious though. You dont need to look around for a bad example. They just pop right into your head.

[DreamQueen]

For crying out loud. What a ridiculous video. Then why did "God" design POISONOUS berries ffs? What next? A video ranting about how beautifully suited the motor car is for humans? Look at that! We slot right into the driver's seat!

[Tyler]

For crying out loud. What a ridiculous video. Then why did "God" design POISONOUS berries ffs? What next? A video ranting about how beautifully suited the motor car is for humans? Look at that! We slot right into the driver's seat! I lol'd. The OP's banana video was complete horse shit. Also, concerning the video about new life in peanut butter, I would think that for new life to happen the circumstances would have to be a bit more chaotic, there really isn't a lot of activity in a jar of peanut butter.

[DreamQueen]

Okay, now that we've sorted out the banana query. Time for a question from atheists to believers... How do you explain the Boxing Day Tsunami which killed a quarter of a million people?

[Idolfan]

Okay, now that we've sorted out the banana query. Time for a question from atheists to believers... How do you explain the Boxing Day Tsunami which killed a quarter of a million people? It was a punishment for the fags obviously.

[Tyler]

Okay, now that we've sorted out the banana query. Time for a question from atheists to believers... How do you explain the Boxing Day Tsunami which killed a quarter of a million people? Let me guess, it was another Sodom and Gamorra, but God got bored with fire and brimstone.

[cuddleyperson]

Okay, now that we've sorted out the banana query. Time for a question from atheists to believers... How do you explain the Boxing Day Tsunami which killed a quarter of a million people? Wait was that Tsunami in the Western world... NO! It's obvious, GOD HATES THE EAST! HATES IT LIKE I HATE PEANUT BUTTER, ROCKET and that crap they call RICE PUDDING!

[DreamQueen]

It's looking like the only plausable answer is that there is no God.

[Universal Mind]

It's looking like the only plausable answer is that there is no God. You just have to choose to believe! Okay, start believing. Ready, go! See how easy it is?