It actually sort of makes sense. Animals essentially are only subconscious, and without a consciousness. In short, they can't reason, or speak, or really understand abstract things. However, as with our own subconscious, they record everything, and have incredible memory. When they "learn" things, it tends to be very visual, and a sort of stimulus-reaction type deal. With that said, the elephant would essentially have photographic memory(people with this type of memory are litterally conscious, but many cases have trouble understanding concepts and creating new ones).

Sort of like, for us to progress, our brain had to selectively empty out some memories, so we can create out own. Think back to cave drawings. This is essentially what the elepahnt could be doing. Once he is trained in how the paint works(and if this is real, I doubt every elephant has this kind of dexterity) it could do this itself.

However, with that said, I still think it's fake. I am not an expert in elephant movement, but there is something that just looks too detailed, and precise about it(however, that could be how they really are, I don't really know).

Mainly, right when it's done drawing that long line down, completing the sillouhette, and the trunk pulls away, it looks a little wierd. Apart from that, this doesn't really seem impossible. I don't see why someone would want to fake it either.

I agree that he can copyright his works, but how can he copyright his voice? Lots of people sound like he does(that raspy kind of voice. The movie trailer guy, LaFontaine, I think, get's thousands of dollars a word, and he sounds very much like him). That fact that other people exist to make a commercial with a guy who has a voice similar to his, sort of disproves his whole argument. He can't copyright MY voice aswell, is my point(that is if I sounded like him), and if I want to license my voice9which happens to sound like his) to an ad company, or provide MY time and serices to record a commercial, it's my choice, regardless anything else, really. I still like Tom Waits's stuff, I just think that's a little ridiculus to copy right something other people are born with(or obtain as a result of heavy smoking, and such. Whichever one). If anything, he would then be sued for having a monopoly on raspy voices, not letting other raspy voiced fellows profit off of their voice. Also, I suppose you can maybe bring parody in it, somehow, but I don't really think it belongs.

Anyone who immediately puts down a film like this as "religious propaganda" might want to reevaluate their stance on evolution, especially without even seeing the movie(this is precisely why bloggers aren't viewed as press, by the way), since they clearly do not know either theory very well.

First of all, anyone who sees Intelligent Design as contradictory to evolution, doesn't really know what it is. It's not a replacement to evolution, but more of an addon, attempting to explain the things that evolution hasn't(like the origin of life), while still keeping the key parts of evolution in mind(the more proven parts, like evolving). It is at it's purist anyway, as actual creationists have unfortunately managed to get their hands on it, and warp it to fit their ideas, giving all of you this very ugly idea of it.

All it's really doing is sort of highlighting the holes in evolution(again, not the evolving part, or the span of time, or anything like that). The entire long version of the actual theory of evolution is very inclusive of other bits and theories, building theory on top of theory(going against scientific method), while this theory sort of throws away the very unproven parts and attempts to add to the theory by examining evolution more objectively(if it weren't for the bible, it would look a lot more plausible), admittedly, with more very unproven parts. Essentially it's just replacing extremely unproven areas of evolution(or just areas with no explanation so far) with their own equally unproved theories. That's all.

What the film was trying to do(all I've seen is the trailer) was attempt to talk about the extreme censorship believers of this theory have experienced(because of uneducated people like many of the ones here...) like many very well respected scientists. It also seemed to want to talk about the theory itself, and try to bring the real version of it to light, and not the crazy creationism associated version you all have in your head...

At least that was what I thought before reading this. Honestly, I doubt Myers wasn't let in purely because of his views, since Dawkins was let in fine(as well as Myers' family) so I'm assuming there is probably another element to it(especially if police were involved), however it would be pretty bad for a film against censorship of scientific views to actually do something like that(which I doubt they did, since they let Dawkins in). I am a little disappointed that Stein is in fact a right-to-lifer, but unlike some people I don't immediately discount everything a smart person might have to say because of one personal belief(abortion is more of an ethics discussion that a scientific one), and will still try to watch the movie. It is a little crazy that Myers was forced off public property(which I can't believe any good cop would do, unless there was another reason) but I still have a feeling that there is more to this.

Anyway, all we want is for people to view this theory as at least a possibility(so far an alternative to nothing, really) and let us speak about it and discuss it in the scientific community, objectively, and without any preconceived notions(as real scientists would do), instead of being threatened to lose our jobs. You all talk about not following scientific method, and approaching things with out own agenda in mind, somehow oppressing everyone else, but in the scientific community, it is actually you, the all-or-nothing evolutionists who are pushing your own agenda, not letting any other theories emerge. All we want is a right to speak and nothing else, regardless of this movie, or how it is handled(I had some high hopes after watching the trailer, but after hearing about this little debacle, I'm just hoping Stein really isn't an undercover creationist after all). If it weren't for radicals going against the community, many great things never would have happened, and we never know what proof we might find in a couple of years. Science is all about taking different ideas into consideration while trying to prove them right or wrong(or get some kind of result). Without any contesting, or any different ideas whatsoever, there will never be any results. We have all just seemed to agree about the entirety of evolution because all the other parts make so much sense. This doesn't mean we must throw away every new idea, or stop examining this one and it is in fact during these stages of a theory that it must be really put to the test to prove it.

We just want a damn voice, any voice! Something to say "there is still room in evolution for new ideas!" instead of mindlessly approving of it. I know you are all smart, and that I am not very good at writing things like this, so I probably am not clear as I can be(and I don't want to repeat myself endlessly, since I already did a bunch of times), so I'm really hoping I was clear enough, at least, to get my little point across. Remember, prejudice is bad, even of ideas.

I would also like to state that I am not some crazy Christian cook, nor am I very religious. I don't believe in any omnipotent being, nor that the earth was not created in around 5 billion years, or that we didn't evolved from apes, or that dinosaurs didn't exist. I believe in all of that, I just think that looking at the gaps in the evolution of life, this theory alone doesn't explain it all; some sort of unknown force affected this our development, intelligent or not. At the moment, Intelligent Design is the only theory that explores this(probably owing both it's creation and survival thus far wholly to stubborn creationists who are too stupid to understand the difference), so I support it. I do in fact think that a different, more natural(so to speak) force is more probable, but there is nothing as rounded out as Intelligent Design, or one that explores anything like this beyond the creation of the first form of life.

As a huge nerd, I often see the parallels between our body and brain(and more importantly individual cells) to computers and machines, which we in fact created. That's just me, and this is just my opinion and I can't believe that in a community that claims to be open minded, and not hold any type of views besides those proven, I still have to defend such a simple, logical explanation of a single possibility(just one, little, possibility of something different) so much...