The Ur-Tuber Controversy

Children have long known that if they hold their index fingers about an inch apart and an inch or so away from the bridge of their nose, there results the unmistakable image of a bean or a potato. Sir H. R. S. Brimsley IV, who spent years studying this phenomenon, came to the conclusion that his image was an important clue that man had evolved from some sort of bean, or potato, and dubbed it the "Ur-Tuber." This was in direct conflict with Darwin's assumption that the small notch on our ears is a vestigial remnant from our ancient apish forebears (or fore apes). Brimsley challenged Darwin's notch, reasoning thus in his article "Darwin and his Silly-Ass Theory" from which the following is excerpted:

I submit that my Ur-Tuber is more consistent an accounting of our evolutionary development than is Mr. Darwin's notorious notch. I say this out of no disrespect for Darwin, who, although a swine, is no more so than most people who disagree with me. Still, kindness aside, the problem with Darwin's notch is its inconsistency. It appears on some, and not on others. Moreover, it is more pronounced on some, and less so on others. What does this then imply? Are we to assume that the size of said notch somehow determines degree of kinship to the ape family? Or that those whose notch is larger are less lately descended, and those with a more diminutive notch, belong to a higher stratum? I wonder. And what of those with no such vestige? Are they descended from other, smooth-eared creatures, like the sea urchin? No. Darwin's notch is naught but mid-century flapdoodle. My Ur-Tuber theory is consistency itself. All those with normal vision and healthy digits will be able to view the Ur-Tuber -- no exceptions. Mr. Darwin's imbecilic groping to back into a rational explanation of our origins ill befits an honest man of science •••