Take that opposable thumbs!

>> ^thatguyjames:
I love humans.


We're the best damn species on the planet! Go opposing thumbs!!!

>> ^cybrbeast:
>> ^ponceleon:
Am I nuts or does that thing have opposable thumbs?

"They have well developed opposable thumbs"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slow_loris
It's also venomous!
Other animals with opposable thumbs:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thumb#Other_animals_with_opposable_thumbs
As said, you might still be nuts though.



AAAAHHH THEY ARE EVOLVING!!! WE ARE DOOOOOMED!

>> ^ponceleon:
Am I nuts or does that thing have opposable thumbs?

"They have well developed opposable thumbs"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slow_loris
It's also venomous!

Other animals with opposable thumbs:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thumb#Other_animals_with_opposable_thumbs

As said, you might still be nuts though.

Am I nuts or does that thing have opposable thumbs?

"Sucks that we don't have wings like that flying squirrel..."

You know you can't jerk off without opposable thumbs, right?

Best argument for opposable thumbs ever.

I believe you forgot the opposable thumbs on these hands over here. Slight oversight, no toxic reaction could possibly happen with any thing such as this that may or may not be prevalent in everything else.

judging by the fact that all the humans in this video appear to be high, the cat, lacking opposable thumbs, has no way of getting in or out of the fridge of its own volition, and the fact that the cat doesn't look all that pleased being where he is, I'm going to vote this as being downright abuse.

The illogical stuff is the best and most interesting... love, music, the human brain...

I find those things fascinating, mysterious perhaps, but not illogical, Love and music are things that may sometimes make us irrational, or atleast do irrational things, but that doesnt mean they cant have a natural origin, and I dont have a problem thinking of a few possible explanations, and indeed, with research into the function of the brain, we've make lots of progress on understanding how these things work.

You perhaps want these things to remain mysterious, abstract concepts, with no basis in the natural world, maybe because you dont want to unweave the rainbow, as Keats put it. "God" -in any form- is however no good explanation for the origin of these things, no more than he is an explanation for the origin of our opposing thumbs.

I'm fascinated by love, music, art and culture and its effect on humans, and lots of things can be said about them, what is clear is that you can obviously have all those things, and appreciate them, without any kind of supernatural hankerings whatsoever.

Point in case, as you mentioned Spock, Star Trek for example was created by an atheist

If crows ever attain opposable thumbs, GOD HELP US.

Unfortunately for mankind, stupidity isn't always painful. If it was, we'd all be geniuses within a few years of reaching the age of reason. Luckily, however, we can rise above our faults and try to understand at least the bit of our universe that is encompassed in our senses. We cannot understand god, if it exists, in any sense beyond our human senses, so it's amusing to find people berating Dawkins (or anybody else, for that matter) about a simple set of beliefs. The anger in those responses is laughable, at least, because it is out of suppose love that these people wish Dawkins to burn in hell for eternity. Nothing wrong with a strange belief if the believer is never taken seriously, right?

I would love, after my death, for a god to actually exist and show himself to me. Because I have a lot of unanswered questions about this ridiculous shell he locked me into. But I don't think those questions will ever be answered. If there is a god, it cannot possibly show any interest in us as more than science experiments. After all, we've evolved opposable thumbs and higher brain functions, and we turn our rising capabilities into consumerist whoring and war. If there is a god, it probably wants to scrape us from the petri dish and start over.

Anywho...funny video.

1) We have opposable thumbs
2) We created fire
3) Cheesecake
4) The internet
4) Machines
5) Music
6) Language


You wanted six? there they are.

Jerk ass monkey, messing with mah dog... NOBODY MESSES WITH MY DOGS!!!!!!

I'll show him what opposable thumbs can do to his face when holding a crowbar...

The caller didn't get around to stating his point until the very end, but I think I followed his (flawed) logic and he seemed to be saying this:
<caller's view>
Evolution must be false since its proponents say humans evolved from apes(1.) yet apes are still around now. Since evolution started in some specific geographic location(2.), and creationism says Adam and Eve were created in some specific geographic location, then evolution and creationism are in agreement on the idea that life originated in a specific geographic location. Since they are in agreement on that fact then that fact must be true(3.), and since as per the first sentence evolution is false that leaves creationism as having to be true(4.) as it is the remaining alternative agreeing with said fact. Further, since evolution agrees with creationism on that fact which must true, then evolution is in fact creationism(5.) that has been modified and had god taken out all because some people just don't like god(6.).
</caller's view>

There are many problems with that train of thought:

1. Humans did not evolve from apes; humans and apes evolved from the same ancestor which was some third thing. People say humans evolved from apes in casual conversation because "ape" can be broadly defined to mean anything with an opposable thumb other than a human. Don't put too much stock in how words seem to be used in casual conversation; to have a serious discussion on a topic the first thing you do is define the words you're going to use.

2. Evolution did not start in a specific geographic location. The caller is confusion evolution(change in life, which would occur where ever life is) with abiogenesis(the origin of life, from chemical reactions). Abiogenesis also did not necessarily start in a specific geographic location. The necessary chemicals would have covered the entire planet, as those chemicals formed from the same large cloud of material the planet itself formed from. (Search the sift for "The Origin of Life made easy".)

3. Just because two views that otherwise are in opposition happen to be in agreement on a particular idea does not make that idea true. It's trivial to think up arguments which demonstrate this. This is a flaw in the caller's logic as opposed to the misunderstanding of facts in points 1 and 2.

4. Even if evolution were false, that would not automatically mean creationism must be true. Just because you've ruled as false all but one of a set of explanations does not mean the remaining one must be true; they could have all been false. This is another logical fallacy, and again it's trivial to think up examples that contradict the caller's idea. The caller also makes another misunderstanding of fact here by claiming creationism and evolution/abiogenesis are the only explanations for life.

5. Just because two views agree on a particular subtopic doesn't mean the two views are the same. It seems that what the caller is trying to do here is say that proponents of evolution aren't merely saying things that are false but they are saying things they know are false and thus they are liars. It's an emotionally motivated attack against the evolution proponents' characters and motivations; he's trying to claim evolution proponents secretly believe in god but support evolution because they dislike god. Involving someone's character or motivations in an assessment of the veracity of their argument is another logical fallacy.

6. There are large numbers of people who claim to believe both in god and evolution. Various Popes have even made the claim or at least come close.