Do you really need any more evidence than this? Dolphins Evolve Opposable Thumbs 'Oh ****!!!' Says Humanity HONOLULU—In an announcement with grave implications for the primacy of the species of man, marine biologists at the Hawaii Oceanographic Institute reported Monday that dolphins, or family Delphinidae, have evolved opposable thumbs on their pectoral fins. Above: One of the evolved dolphins, whose opposable thumbs have struck fear in the hearts of humankind. "I believe I speak for the entire human race when I say, 'Holy ****,'" said Oceanographic Institute director Dr. James Aoki, noting that the dolphin has a cranial capacity 40 percent greater than that of humans. "That's it for us monkeys." Aoki strongly urged humans, especially those living near the sea, to learn to communicate using a system of clicks and whistles in a frequency range of 4 to 150 kHz. He also encouraged humans to "start practicing their echolocation as soon as possible." Delphinologists have reported more than 7,000 cases of spontaneous opposable-digit manifestation in the past two weeks alone, with "thumbs" observed on the bottle-nosed dolphin, the Atlantic humpback dolphin, and even the rare Ganges River dolphin. "It appears to be species-wide," said dolphin specialist Clifford Brees of the Kewalo Basin Marine Mammal Laboratory, speaking from the shark cage he welded shut around himself late Monday. "And it may be even worse: We haven't exactly been eager to check for thumbs on other marine mammals belonging to the order of cetaceans, such as the killer whale. Oh, Christ, we're really in the soup now." Thus far, all the opposable digits encountered appear to be fully functional, making it possible for dolphins—believed to be capable of faster and more complex cogitation than man—to manipulate objects, fashion tools, and construct rudimentary pulley and lever systems. "They really seem to be making up for lost time with this thumb thing," said Dr. Jim Kuczaj, a University of California–San Diego biologist who has studied the seasonal behavior of dolphins for more than 30 years. "Last Friday, a crude seaweed-and-shell abacus washed up on the beach near Hilo, Hawaii. The next day, a far more sophisticated abacus, fashioned from some unknown material and capable of calculating equations involving numbers of up to 16 digits, washed up on the same beach. The day after that, the beach was littered with thousands of what turned out to be coral-silicate and kelp-based biomicrocircuitry." Above: A primitive axe crafted out of driftwood and shell that is believed to be the handiwork of dolphins. "My God," Kuczaj added. "What are they doing down there?" It is unknown what precipitated the dolphins' sudden development of opposable thumbs. Some dolphin behaviorists believe that the gentle marine mammal, pushed to the brink by humanity's reckless pollution and exploitation of the sea, tapped into some previously unmined mental powers to spontaneously generate a thumb-like appendage. However, given that 95 percent of the world's dolphin experts have committed suicide since learning of the development, the full story may never be known. "You must believe, sleek ocean masters, that many of us homo sapiens weep with shame and disgust over the degradation to which our species has subjected our All-Mother, the Great World-Sea," read the suicide note of Dr. Richard Morse, a Brisbane, Australia, delphinologist and regular contributor to Marine Mammal Science. "If you are reading this, I estimate that it is the day we know as August 31, 2000. Please be decent and kind masters to our poor ape-race. Oh, God, I'm so sorry about the tracking collars." "Scientists once wondered whether dolphins, with their remarkably advanced social and language structures, are actually smarter than we are," said Aoki, ushering reporters out of the laboratory he claimed "will either be a smoking hole or a zoo exhibit in the coming Dolphin Age." "Well, we're not wondering anymore."
I agree, I hope you don't mind if I use the "putting limits on God's powers" part if I'm ever debating this.
Why is it always a debate on the evolution of man? Why not debate the evolution of Earth, the Solar System or our Galaxy? Should we teach creationism instead of astronomy too? There is no proof of how the moon evolved, so does that mean there is no scientific explanation? Or we shouldn't teach the best scientific theory? I think the evolution of man is no different than the history of the earth, we are one and the same. We would not exist if not for the Earth, the Sun, the Moon, and the stars, etc. Everything is impermanent and empty.
Yo dude, like man, have you ever like heard of this guy, this guy Stephen J Gould? Yea man, he wrote this book called "The Structure of Evolutionary Theory" and it's really heavy man. Yea, like it weighs like a hunnert pounds. No really, it took him like 60 years to write, he studied snails man. yea he spent his whole life looking at snails man and the he wrote a book about it. You should read it
o.k. thanks for all the replies I did read some of the web sites suggested (and will read them further later). Here are my conclusions (so far): 1) Evolution as defined as living things changing and adapting to their environment is an indisputable fact 2) Where the "leaps" in logic occur is when you suggest that all things evolved from a single source or even at a higher level that gorrillas/humans/monkeys all have a common ancestor. This part of evolution is a theory. There are some facts that if we "fill in the blanks" with the answers we want seem to support this but all the blanks are not filled in and it is only a theory. If you don't believe in a Creator it is the only theory that makes sense so I guess thats why people grab onto it so tightly. 3) Evolution is a scientific theory and I have no problem with it being taught in school as long as it is explained that it is a theory
That's fine but then again, so is gravity, it's not completely understood, and so is just about everything you teach in science class to a certain extent.
Gravity really isn't a theory. If I drop an apple it falls to the ground. It is a provable fact. I don't think that's a good comparison
On a superficial level that is true that you and I can predict the effects of gravity in a general sense, but gravity is a lot more than just that. First, the apple on the head falling to the ground example is the classic illustration of Newtonian gravity, which everybody thought was law, until Einstein came around and developed relativity, which changed the law of gravity (and altered the predictions of Newtonian gravity) Currently there are all sorts of parts of gravity that are not understood and highly conjectural, for example, "gravitons" particle that make up gravity and whether or not they actually exist (nobody knows), and the effects of quantum gravity, and all sorts of high level physics stuff that deal with superstring theory that I only have a casual familiaritty with. In short, there are about as many "gaps" in the theory of gravity (most strikingly, the inability to reconcile it with other forces like Electroweak forces) as there are in evolution. So I no reason to single out evolution as being "just" a theory when pretty much everything is just a theory.
all I am saying is: provable facts should be presented as provable facts --- theories shoudl be presented as theories.
It's not a "fact" if you can observe it, but it's not truly understood. (which gravity isn't, as Sam pointed out) If someone punches you in the face, that's a fact. If your standing there thinking, "I think this guy is going to punch me in the face", that's a theory as yet unproven.
Some people need to go to their local high school science teacher and ask the teacher to explain to them exactly what is meant by the phrase "scientific theory" because it does not mean what you think it means.
1. Here at least we won't have to get bogged down in symantecs: A scientific theory or law represents an hypothesis, or a group of related hypotheses, which has been confirmed through repeated experimental tests. Theories in physics are often formulated in terms of a few concepts and equations, which are identified with "laws of nature," suggesting their universal applicability. Accepted scientific theories and laws become part of our understanding of the universe and the basis for exploring less well-understood areas of knowledge. Theories are not easily discarded; new discoveries are first assumed to fit into the existing theoretical framework. It is only when, after repeated experimental tests, the new phenomenon cannot be accommodated that scientists seriously question the theory and attempt to modify it. The validity that we attach to scientific theories as representing realities of the physical world is to be contrasted with the facile invalidation implied by the expression, "It's only a theory." For example, it is unlikely that a person will step off a tall building on the assumption that they will not fall, because "Gravity is only a theory." http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/AppendixE/AppendixE.html 2. At least go look at a synopsis of Gould's " The Structure of Evolutionary Theory" It really is a ground breaking work and proposes a major advancement in the theory of evolution. http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog/GOUSTR.html 3.The mystery of gravity is not that it exists, it is that we have lived with it and studied it for thousands of years yet we still know nothing of the mechanism of how it works. Also, the gravitational attraction of celestial bodies appears to work independent of the limitations imposed by of the speed of light. Now that's a head trip.
