Lazy gorilla finally evolves

Recently a gorilla took one giant leap for gorilla-kind. Gorillas were once thought to be the only primate that did not use tools. Orangutans, chimpanzees, monkeys, apes, and baboons all had been seen using tools, but the gorilla had decided that he's well off enough without the use of silly tools. At least, that's what science understood, until recently.

In the last few days, two wildlife photographers captured the image of two different gorillas using tools. One using a branch as a walking stick while it looked for food and the other using a stick as a depth tester as it waded into a pond.

Scientists are ecstatic! An article on the Wildlife Conservation Society's website said, "Up to this point, all other species of great apes, including chimpanzees and orangutans, have been observed using tools in the wild, but never gorillas." Yet the scientists act as though they always knew that gorillas used tools. Wait a minute. I thought science was about observation! If it was never seen, how did they know that this primate used tools? Did they check their hands for blisters? Did they put a hammer in front of gorillas in zoos to see if they build a house? Why did they assume that this animal used tools in the wild if it had never been seen?!

Scientists are reacting to this as though they finally captured an image of something they've known occurred for decades. Yet, with the emphasis that is put on the theory of macro-evolution, shouldn't scientists be jumping up and down with joy that we finally have evidence of a creature evolving!? Look! This animal that has never used tools before is using tools! What a giant leap forward for the theory of macro-evolution!

But they aren't responding that way. They are responding as though this animal has always been a tool user. As though it was created that way. Isn't this double standard interesting? Doesn't it sound like they are saying, "We believe that all animals have evolved and continue to evolve even though we have never observed any evolution on a massive scale that meshes with the theory that we claim to believe. We also realize that were we to react as though the discovery of a tool using gorilla was a major evolutionary event we would look like crackpots and be laughed out of academia."

To be fair and unbiased (not that I claim to be): If they were using these findings to claim that the gorilla was evolving right before our eyes, I'd probably post about how macro-evolutionist always try to fit the findings to the theory, rather than the theory to the findings. But at least their reaction would be consistent with their beliefs!

Oh, one more question: What genetic mutation would cause a gorilla to suddenly use tools, anyway? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

Well, there it is: Just my opinion.