Slashdot Mirror
Fear of Snakes May Have Driven Pre-Human Evolution
Krishna Dagli writes "An evolutionary arms race between early snakes and mammals triggered the development of improved vision and large brains in primates, a radical new theory suggests. The idea, proposed by Lynne Isbell, an anthropologist at the University of California, Davis, suggests that snakes and primates share a long and intimate history, one that forced both groups to evolve new strategies as each attempted to gain the upper hand. Early primates developed a better eye for color, detail and movement and the ability to see in three dimensions — traits that are important for detecting threats at close range. Humans are descended from those same primates. "
Snakes...ON A PLANE
Humans are descended from those same primates.
And lawyers/politicians/managers are descended from snakes.
At least its an explanation of the uneasy feeling I get when I see Darl Mcbride.
liqbase
Genesis 3:14-15 The LORD God said to the serpent, "Because you have done this, Cursed are you more than all cattle, And more than every beast of the field; On your belly you will go, And dust you will eat All the days of your life; And I will put enmity Between you and the woman, And between your seed and her seed; He shall bruise you on the head, And you shall bruise him on the heel."
1. Dream up a far-fetched 'theory' that Joe public can understand and involves strong emotions ....
2. Seek publicity
3.
4. Profit!
-- Cheers!
Conventional wisdom is that our depth perception and improved color vision supported an arboreal fruit-eating lifestyle.
It's not obvious why our lineage would co-evolve with snakes any more than any other mammalian lineage would.
BTW, "improved color vision" is relative. Birds have receptors for four colors rather than three. Early mammals lost two of the four, which is why your dog is "color blind". Our lineage re-gained a third, though not the same as either of the two that our ancestors had lost. There was an article about this in Scientific American a month or two back.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
They...they couldn't see in 3 dimensions before? ...Could we evolve to see 4 dimensions, then?
"Everything worth innovating today will go to court tomorrow."
I guess the movie should have been titled "Snakes on the plains"...
---- aut viam inveniam aut faciam
Did the primates have no other predators? As I recall, binocular vision is a characteristic of predator, not prey. (How far do I have to run or jump to catch dinner?) Motion detection and wide-field vision are a characteristic of prey, not predator. (Is something about to run or jump on me? Maybe a moderator with points?)
@HbFyo0$k8 tH!$
I wonder what other deep-rooted, genetic fears we have... I know that snakes in the wild give me that weird chill on the back of my neck. So does hearing tigers. Lions sound different and they don't have the same effect, but hearing a tiger growl I guess triggers some primal fear. Maybe it's that these animals -- snakes and tigers -- can kill you without you ever knowing you're in danger. Imagine a snake biting you, injecting venom, then sitting there waiting until you finally kick the bucket. I can imagine laying there, your life starting to fade, and watching that snake moving around and cleaning his knives and forks.... Plus humans suck at fighting. We have soft underbellies, no claws, no proper teeth, our reproductive organs hang out in plain sight, we can't run fast, we can't climb trees quickly, our sense of smell sucks. Maybe horror writers understand this better. Add deadly unseen things, darkness, and we're terrified.
Men evolved from snakes...
I *am* a psychologist / scientist that studies vision, and I can happily report that this material is a) not new [see the bogus theoretical ramblings of Mineka on the subject] and b) not in any way factual.
Why should the threat of consumption from snakes (snakes! of all things!) have driven us to evolve incredibly good eyesight? Why not hearing? Why not some more obvious and simple snake defense mechanism (like, immunity from snake poison?) At no time in our evolutionary history did snakes actually represent a dominant predatory force (To deal with this, some "experts" claim generalization from dinosaur tails. Right). Just because it has the word "evolution" in it doesn't mean it's right.
This idea, and almost every instantiation of this idea, is total crap, and should be treated this way.
I know, when will people stop knocking the work of the Great Flying Spaghetti Monster.
A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing.
The only time snakes really scare me is when I'm over the Pacific Ocean, halfway between LA and Hawaii and some nutcase release snakes... while I'm on the plane.
Snakes on a Plane 2: Snakes Furthering Human Evolution.
...a snake participates in an arms race, I'll never know.
(Smiles) It's all relative, or is it? To truely believe, is to believe that all have free will and choice to believe in what they choose to believe.
Self proclaimed wannabe geek. You know how it is. Most of us who read this stuff probably fit in that category.
Why are there such bullshit theories regularly sprouting in the news ? Either the summary is (very) bad, or the theory itself is. It's so obvious that there are _many_ factors guiding the evolution of several _sets_ of species like that. And snakes don't eat primates (except for a few exceptions). They only bite when threatened or scared, so I don't see how this could be a leading evolutionary factor.
Non-Linux Penguins ?
In the article they mention evolution as if its some kind of choice that each species made towards their own goals. Last I checked living beings don't have the ability to simply become venomous at will (though thats arguable with some folks), or shift their eyes physically somewhere else to get improved vision (with the exception of those who actually happen to have eyes in the backs of their heads)... it simply doesn't occur that way. Its really just physical or mental "anomalies" that just happen to pass down through generations simply because they survived with those new traits of improved vision, venomous fangs, or some sort of improved intelligence.
In a way thats really whats been happening over the last thousand or two years, only our intelligence has gone up not because of fear of snakes, but from our own kind.
While being a creationist?
That's foul. MOD DOWN.
The key to TFA is recent research that demonstrates that reach-and-grasp didn't evolve alongside 3D vision. So the question this theory attempts to answer is, "Why did early primates evolve advanced, close-up, 3D vision?"
As with most things, the simplest answer is usually the best. While predator evasion could very likely be part of it, there is also an advantage in food gathering -- and while this good vision didn't co-evolve with reach-and-grasp ability, it's quite possible that once reach-and grasp evolved, better eyesight was the 'next step' in better food gathering.
I'm guessing here, but I find it likely that good close-up vision proved advantageous in more than just evading snakes, and I think it's a little simplistic to say that evolutionary one-upmanship with snakes is the sole cause of our (primates) excellent up-close vision.
IANAEB (evolutionary biologist) so I may be completely incorrect...
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
That's quite far-fetched. Snakes and primates do not strongly compete for the same food source and do not really have a strong predator/prey relationship. In fact, they can get along quite well as long as they stay out of each other's way.
The primates' evolutionary developments might have other, much more direct reasons. Color perception is directly related to gathering food (red and yellow fruit vs. green leaves. Btw, picking strawberries is quite a pain in the ass if you're colorblind). Depth perception is pretty much a necessity when jumping from tree to tree - natural selection manifests quite quickly and painfully here. Being able to perceive movements
Not all humans have an instinctive fear of snakes. For instance, I've taken pictures of some local snakes at a range of about 6". These snakes are not poisonous so I know the worst I could get from them is a nasty bite.
If these were poisonous snakes would I still be that close? Probably not but that's simply a healthy respect for the snake and not a fear of it. If you take your time and don't ruffle its scales you can get close to most any snake. If these were copperheads or rattlers I could probably, comfortably, take pictures at a range of 12" or so.
Granted, there are those that the mere picture of a snake will send them into a tizzy but with therapy can overcome that fear. Same with spiders and other crawly things.
Personally, I believe that the reason some people fear snakes is three-fold. First comes from the bible and it's boogeyman characterization of a snake being an evil thing. Second, from all the bad movies showing snakes being evil creatures. Third, from parents telling their kids that snakes are evil things (which comes from points 1 and 2.).
If people are brought up that snakes should be respected and not feared, many problems between snakes and people wouldn't be around.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
I hear the producer of Snakes on a Plane already has a sequel in the works (negotiations), Snakes on a Train (We got snakes on a train! Yes a train motha f******! Choo Choo motha f*****! Choo Choo!).
It is a "matter of fact". Or rather, to be more precise, it is a recognized and well known scientific theory (they don't like to call them "facts", but non-scientists will often do so because it's easier to say). It is so strong that one can indeed make it as a "matter of fact" statement.
Clever signature text goes here.
I've misplaced the link, if I ever had it (I just recall hearing about this from my wife the evolutionary biology teaching fellow) but there's currently a species of primate (bonobo?) that has different behaviors for different kinds of predators. They scurry up into trees for land-based predators, they go down under cover for large birds, and do something in between (I forget what) for snakes.
And they have different calls for each of these kinds of predator.
Well, they've developed another one for humans with rifles. And they give the call if they just see hunting dogs.
So yeah -- adapting to predators is a top-level priority. Although in that case they're benefitting from previously-evolved capabilities, presumably, given the speed of adaptation.
To err is human. To forgive is good system design.
COBRA!! (Cobra!)
COBRA!! (Cobra!)
Armies of the night
Evil taking flight
COBRA!! (Cobra!)
COBRA!! (Cobra!)
No where to run
No where to hide
Panic spreading far and wide
Who can turn the tide?
GI Joe- (A real American hero)
Yo Joe!
GI Joe is there
Fighting for freedom
Wherever there's trouble
over land and sea and air
GI Joe is there
"I've spent my whole life figuring out crazy ways to do things. It'll work." -- Montgomery Scott, "Relics"
I think I remember from psychology class, that an innate fear of snakes is one of the very few visible human instincts. It's also something that is present in all (or nearly all?) mammals? If you take a stiff rope and shove it towards a kitten (who has never dealt witha real snake before), he will have a far stronger reaction than with other toys. The recognition and fear of snakes is built-in. (Sorry I don't have any references offhand, just my hazy recollection; any expert care to commment?)
Love many, trust a few, do harm to none.
In fact, Wilbur and Orville Wright invented the airplane in the hopes that mankind would break free of the bonds of the snake-infested Earth and live free and happy in the snake-free skies. Little did they know...
Cobras!
-- Homer
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessio nid=DCKRNZUO0GTG5QFIQMFSFGGAVCBQ0IV0?xml=/news/200 6/05/18/wchimp18.xml
To err is human. To forgive is good system design.
To my knowledge - which is admittedly a year or so old - basically there are three relevant points.
1. Most people have 3 color receptors that they actually use, while some are colorblind to varying degrees including a relatively high number are red-green colorblind having effectively one RG and one B receptor. HOWEVER, where (what wavelength) the "R" "G" and "B" receptors is is NOT exactly the same for each person. So it is very possible that a perfect match for one person is not a perfect match for another especially for colors that are a complex mixture of wavelengths (eg most real-life pigments in sunlight) Note that generally matching the amount of the same pigment should generally be very, very close - to demonstrate this effect you mostly need to be combining very different wavelengths that "should" be the same added together.
The take-home geek message is that you can use an RGB monitor to match every color you can see - IF the monitor's RGB match yours. Otherwise it's not perfect. (Also see point 3)
Have two receptors very close together eventually becomes indistinguishable from just having one as they approach being in the same spot.
2. Some people are known as "tetrachromats" All examples I've heard about have been the mothers of red-green colorblind men. Essentially they have an extra receptor between R & G. This means that they can determine that two colors don't match in situations where everyone with three receptors would think they matched.
3. Apparently we may also have a 4th (or 5th, depending on pt 2) receptor in the ultraviolet range. However, most of the light in this range is blocked by the alchohol in our eye fluids, so this receptor is mostly pretty useless. However, this doesn't mean we don't see SOME color with this receptor right at the edge where it's not blocked by the alchohol - it's just not a very large part of our sight.
These colors definitely don't exist in monitors, which I personally and nonscientifically think is why I love staring at the LED on a PS2.
Looking for freelance Actionscript (Flash/Flex) or ColdFusion work and/or freelance developers. Email me, put Slashdot
Well we see proof in the world around us that Darwinism is possible. We have yet to see "something pop out of nothing" as creationism suggests.
So while Darwinism is just a theory at this point, its a theory well grounded in current scientific observation, while Creationism is not..
"This m______ing Segway can't even go faster than a m______ing newborn garter snake!"
Where were you when the voynix came?
Snakes, spiders, water, heights are genetically-enabled fears that all primates share if they are imprinted. The mechanism has been demonstrated on monkeys and chimpanzees. If you show a young chimpanzee a snake for the first time, and show him other chimpanzees expressing fear, the youngster develops a fear of snakes. If you show him chimpanzees ignoring the snake, he does not. We know it's a genetic function because the same does not happen with a flower, a chair, etc.
It makes sense because there's no point being afraid of harmless snakes, safe water, etc.
But some fears are so deep they don't need activation. One of these is the fear of fanged predators in the night. It so happens (I read about this many years ago and can't find the reference) that there was at least one population of sabre-toothed tigers that evolved specifically to hunt proto-human primates, and it's quite possible that this group (the survivors, at least) were an ancestral population. IIrc there was a mountain of ape skulls in the tiger's cave, each showing marks where the teeth wrapped around the whole head as the tiger dragged off its victim.
Vampires are probably a modern expression of this ancient terror.
As for snakes forcing us to develop 3D vision? That's just junk science. We're evolved from fruit-eating primates and such animals develop colour vision to detect fruit, and 3D vision because swinging through trees without a depth of field is very quickly selected against.
My blog
evolution does not define Darwinism. And Ironicly Darwin, himself, professed Christianity later in his life.
Self proclaimed wannabe geek. You know how it is. Most of us who read this stuff probably fit in that category.
Sure we do. We've just covered the planet, wiping out species wholesale. Humans with minimal technology (wooden spears and fire) can bring down antelope 3 times our size.
We suck at many things, but fighting isn't one of them.
I'm pretty sure that the distance a person can see increases with the different weapons they fight with. In particular, a person with brawling or stickfighting capabilities can only see a short distance, while gunfighters can perceive targets a bit further. F-15 pilots have pretty good eyesight, and can typically spot a missile or aircraft at ranges in excess of 400 km, much further than other humans. Animals, on the other hand, have pretty bad eyesight since no animals can use tools or weapons to fight. Eyesight abilities are not constant, of course, and this theory can easily be tested by learning to fight with a gun, and determining if after gun training and gun killing, a person can identify another person at a greater range than before, without telescopes and/or 'glasses'. (I've personally tested this theory, and it is accurate.)
What the university student's report failed to mention, about the fear of snakes, is what archaeological & DNA evidence supported this theory. It's a stupid theory, imho, and was probably voiced not because of any particular insight on the part of the student, but instead to get reputation and/or credentials and was written to 'sound good'.
Go to some young child under three. He/she will react adversly to several things like creepy crawlies and snakes. They can overcome this natural revulsion, but it is there.
Just a Tuna in the Sea of Life
The only thing stranger than the content of this article is the fact that it is being hosted on foxnews.com.
COBRA!! (Cobra!)
COBRA!! (Cobra!)
Armies of the night
Evil taking flight
COBRA!! (Cobra!)
COBRA!! (Cobra!)
No where to run
No where to hide
Panic spreading far and wide
Who can turn the tide?
GI Joe- (A real American hero)
Yo Joe!
GI Joe is there
Fighting for freedom
Wherever there's trouble
over land and sea and air
GI Joe is there
So what you're saying is that GI Joe protects us from snakes on a plane?
Hmmm......and I'm afraid of Snakes.
Coincidence?
1. Dream up a far-fetched 'theory' that Joe public can understand and involves strong emotions ....
2. Seek publicity
3.
4. Sue anyone who makes fun of you
5. Profit!
6. Increase thetan levels!
Colin Dean Go a year without DRM
-Humans are descended from those same primates.
Another poster mentioned the unscientific nature of this sentence; "might be" would be better language than "are."
-Today, the only other threats faced by primates are raptors, such as eagles and hawks, and large carnivores, such as bears, large cats and wolves, but these animals evolved long after snakes did.
Can anyone name an area in the world where wolves and monkeys coexist? Jungles are full of large cats, and thanks to a foolish Barbary macaque in a Dutch zoo I now know that bears and primates coexist in parts of Asia. But wolves? Perhaps millions of years ago. But then let's hypothesize that it was giant carnivorous pigs that drove the evolution.
...a monkey's uncle!
Humans are descended from those same primates.
Hey I'm right!
I can't believe this. It feels like some one making a (bad) bid for funding rather than a realistic theory. The biggest problem I can see is that snakes don't eat humans, in fact snakes seem to pretty much go out of their way to avoid humans most of the time. Perhaps some of the very small primates are prey for snakes and as such their evolution would be partially guided by snakes. Humans evolved from fairly large primates; primates that are far to large for even a large snake to swallow. Ergo a snake wouldn't prey on those primates - theres just no point. Hence the current situation where snakes and humans just leave each other alone.
I used to have a better sig but it broke.
When is the last time you saw a snake eat a monkey? If anything drove primate adaptation, wouldn't have been, I don't know... the ability to avoid bears or lions, or other primates? Personally, I think color vision came about so that we'd better know when to flip the mammoth meat. Either that, or to better appreciate feminine beauty. Seriously, though, if you want to figure out what drove an adaptation, shouldn't you look at what the adaptation is subsequently mostly used for?
They evolved wings so that they could beat away the SNAKES!
Animals, on the other hand, have pretty bad eyesight since no animals can use tools or weapons to fight.
Yeah. The phrase "eagle-eyed" was coined in reference to jet-fighter pilots who flew the "Eagle."
This is silly. Fighter pilots have excellent eyesight because they are chosen to fly based partly on their excellent eyesight. The other assertions about improved eyesight with respect to rifle training is perhaps accurate to a certain extent, but it has more to do with exercising the eye. If pretty much anyone can increase their visual range by practice, it provides no real evolutionary selection mechanism, and so wouldn't drive evolution.
What the university student's report failed to mention, about the fear of snakes, is what archaeological & DNA evidence supported this theory. It's a stupid theory, imho, and was probably voiced not because of any particular insight on the part of the student, but instead to get reputation and/or credentials and was written to 'sound good'.
Amen to that, Brother. This is a minor hypothesis that hasn't even been tested yet. Strange that it would get news coverage, except that ID and evolution are very much in the news these days.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
And Ironicly Darwin, himself, professed Christianity later in his life.
Did he then profess the theory of evolution, and science in general, to be invalid? And, if he professed Christianty, did he also then seek to wipe all other points of view - one of the stated goals of christianity? Just because he professed christianty, you're assuming he agrees with you? That seems presumtious to me.
Darwin didn't argue against god, anyway, but in favor of a scientific explanation for the diversification of species. The problem is that science tends to undermine social control structures which are based on less than rational belief systems. Thus, christianity seeks to discredit much of science, even today.
What's really ironic is that at one point in time, christianity was a force for preserving civilization. Now, it consistantly apears to be opposing it in so many instances.
"We are all geniuses when we dream"
- E.M. Cioran
Fear of Samuel L. Jackson may drive post-human evolution it seems then?
Promote Charity on Myspace, Show Your Colours!
I disagree. I had up until recently six pet constricting non-venomous snakes, ranging in size from three feet to about seven. Several children have seen my snakes and were not startled by them or upset by them at all, nor were the rest of my pets (two cats and a dog).
I suspect that this is because many snakes move quite slowly if they're not immediately attacking, so they're not viewed as a danger. They're also beautiful to behold in their patterning and colours. Furthermore, I suspect my pets weren't scared of them because snakes don't have a really strong scent unless they're musking or sitting around in their own filth, so animals who base their interpretation of the world largely in scent don't necessarily perceive snakes to be alive or interesting.
Anyways, snakes do make wonderful pets, if you're inclined towards them. They're gorgeous, fascinating, and require little care or expense.
Folks this is coming from Fox News' science department. I wasn't aware Fox News had a science department and after reading the story I am still unaware of any reporting on science by Fox News.
Snakes being a major force in the evolution of mammals including humans? I want to see some pretty strong evidence first.
I remember hearing an interesting theory about this somewhere (some documentary). It has been hypothosised that the presense of draggons in the mythologies of many human cultures is due to a sort-of hard wiring in the brain to fear certain threats to early man. The biggest threats that our pre-historic ancestors faced were from snakes, birds of prey, and large cats. The imagery associated with dragons is basically a composite of those three groups. Like birds of brey, draggons fly and have sharp tallons. They are scaled like snakes and move like large predetory cats.
We must evolve again! They have learnt how to fly.. hopefully not first class.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0417148/
From my experience, my children have all loved creepy crawlie things. My one year old loves trying to catch bugs (earwigs, spiders, worms, etc.). My three year old also used to love doing that around the age of 2. Now he gives more of the "Ugg, a bug!" reaction. My oldest son, 5, hates creppy crawlie things now, didn't before. So, from my limited experience, I think the reaction is more learned than inate.
--David
"F-15 pilots have pretty good eyesight, and can typically spot a missile or aircraft at ranges in excess of 400 km, much further than other humans"
In other news, balsitic missile operators evolved to see their russian targets through the earth.
Come on... 400km is radar range, if you are a combat pilot and first notice the ennemy/missile at sight range, you're doomed.
I dunno. My mom says I used to like spiders when I was a baby.
110100 1101000 1101000 1100110 0 1101111 1101000 1100011 1
From: http://www.janegoodall.org/chimp_central/chimpanze es/behavior/rain_dance.asp
An excellent example of a respect and intense curiosity of chimpanzees to an animate object is in their reaction to snakes, particularly pythons. Pythons could pose a threat to young chimpanzees, but it is not likely that any snake would take on an adult. However, when a single individual or group of chimpanzees encounters a python (even a small one), the reaction is remarkable. One would expect the chimps to issue alarm calls to warn others and as an expression of their fear, but then to move well out of harms way as soon as possible. Predictably, the chimpanzees do issue a specific vocalization called a snake wraa, but when it is uttered, the group often draws near, to stare at the snake. Some climb above if possible for a better look. Typical facial expressions are those of fear and curiosity. Physical reassurance contact is often made (especially mutual embracing), and eye contact among individuals is frequent. After tens of minutes, members finally begin to disperse. Some individuals however, (Skosha and Apollo, for instance) show exaggerated and prolonged interest. Both call time and again even after the other individuals have moved well away. I have seen both stay and stare and call for as long as 30 minutes.
It is difficult to explain why chimpanzees react to pythons in this way. It appears to be much more than keeping a close eye on a possible threat, as many species do. It also seems a great waste of energy and time. If pythons are dangerous, it would make much more sense to alarm call and move away as quickly as possible.
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
Not all humans have an instinctive fear of snakes.
My developmental psychology professor assured us that infants are universally afraid of a few things - including snakes and heights. Other fears they can quickly learn, but depend on their environment. (This was three decades ago, so maybe it's debated since. Certainly the term "instinct" was debated even then.) Nor do all the fears we're born with necessarily carry over into later life. If we're comfortable calling a fear everyone is born with "instinctual," then fear of snakes is. Being able to grow out of it later doesn't prove the contrary. Geese have an "instinct" for migration, yet given the year-round goose-friendly environment human beings have created in some locations, there are now flocks which have totally given up on migration. An "instinct" is what a creature begins with, not necessarily where it ends up.
"with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
That we can fly now and thus avoid the snakes!
"Fighting the underpants gnomes since 1998!" "Bruce Schneier knows the state of schroedinger's cat"
And, I could have been born with horns, and pigs flying out of my ass, but there are not pictures to prove it, so I am calling BULLSHIT!
----- I have bad karma for a reason! -----
Why should they be respected? They are stupid, unpleasant, dangerous creatures. All they do is slither around and eat. And you can't even eat them. They should be feared because they are often very dangerous.
Stupidity is like nuclear power, it can be used for good or evil. And you don't want to get any on you.
...pray = prey. Sorry about it.
"an innate fear of snakes is one of the very few visible human instincts"
I recall seeing a documentary where they introduced snakes into a cage full of very young primates. They showed no fear until shown adults reacting in fear. A clear case of learned reaction. It would be difficult to perform such an experiment with babies, I would imagine.
As a side issue, why do dogs, as they bed down, curl their rear to the side while rotating and settling lower on their haunches. Is it to displace any creepy crawlies that might be lurking there.
davecb5620@gmail.com
You're a creationist. Fine.
Some people believe that their dead relatives talk to them, too. I don't call them delusional, so I'll leave you to it.
110100 1101000 1101000 1100110 0 1101111 1101000 1100011 1
1) Wise does not neccesarily mean good.
2) "John 3:14 - As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up." - This is a reference to Numbers 21:6-9. The serpent was an icon Moses put on a pole to heal those who had been poisoned by snakebite. Christ alludes to his own "lifint up", in other words his crucifiction, as a method of healing people, in the spiritual sense.
But beyond that, you're absolutely correct. The Catholic church replaced many pagan holidays with Christian versions in order to make Christianity more appealing to the unconverted. Christmas was originally a celebration of Mithras, a deity with striking similarity to Christ. Easter has a number of different pagan origins, depending on who you believe. Halloween is supposed to have originated in the Celtic tradition of Samhain.
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not entirely sure about the universe - Einstein
... And Ironicly Darwin, himself, professed Christianity later in his life. This statement is three times wrong. First, it has nothing to do with the explanatory power of any Theory of Evolution. Second, it is a lie. It's probably some vague misstatement of the "Lady Hope" story, which has been debunked almost since it began. (For more details, you can check the talk.origins archive story. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hope.html). I'll leave the third out, lest I be cursed with more spelling problems than usual.
So why haven't rodents gone through the same evolutionary steps? I don't think that snakes would have killed enough primates to cause this. Also, who says that the early primates were even capable of feeling fear to this level?
This explaines the internal fear of fangs.
it's just a symbol - they don't really do that.
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
Eivind.
Doubting the existence of evolution is like doubting the existence of China: It just shows that you're uninformed.
Indiana Jones: Snakes. Why'd it have to be snakes?
Sallah: Asps. Very dangerous. You go first.
You haven't evolved enough yet.
Parent is a whack job.
I can see in 4 dimensions. When I look at a curry I can forsee the toilet taking a pounding in the near future
The poster says that competition between snakes and our ancestors "triggered the development of improved vision and large brains in primates". I think we need to be careful with the terms here. It didn't really trigger anything, it's just that, according to the theory, improved vision and large brains increased the survival probability of those portions of the species that had these traits and thus the traits were passed on.
Technological progress has merely provided us with more efficient means for going backwards. -- Aldous Huxley
If you're going to waste mod points modding-down a post the gist of which is "I believe in God and I think you should too", then why not waste 'em modding-down one that boils down to "I believe you're a simpleton to believe in God"?!?!
I'm pretty sure that the distance a person can see increases with the different weapons they fight with. In particular, a person with brawling or stickfighting capabilities can only see a short distance, while gunfighters can perceive targets a bit further. F-15 pilots have pretty good eyesight, and can typically spot a missile or aircraft at ranges in excess of 400 km, much further than other humans.
So if I trade in my stick for an F-15, my vision will improve by a factor of one hundred? Awesome!
You must think in Russian.
That snake is the source of all evils. :)
:p
If you see snake on the tree.. dont eat that apple at all.
Thank you for the continued sweeping generalizations about Christianity when you obviously know little about it, and instead rant based on your pre-consieved ideas of Christianity instead.
Christianity does not seeek to discredit science, in fact many of us, who believe in God, and a Christ who came to earth as man and died for our sins (genericly put, Christians) believe that evolution works hand in hand with a supreme being, and that science in no way contradicts the plausible existance of such a creator. I believe that one day Science will prove out God as a high being that we may not be able to prove exists as of yet with our current level of evolution and knowledge. That doesn't make the belief in such a thing any less plausible. Why can you not see that distiction?
Self proclaimed wannabe geek. You know how it is. Most of us who read this stuff probably fit in that category.
And we wonder why there is a debate between Darwinism and Creationism.
No, we don't.
There is a debate because creationists have manufactured a debate. There is internal debate among biologists about some of the mechanisms of evolution and natural selection, but that doesn't require creationism in the slightest.
Those who espouse creationism do so out of a bond to a cult. "If it contradicts what is literally in my Bible, it is false." That is an aspect of a cult: to deny the evidence when faced with it. (There's also the whole personality-driven thing, in which Jerry Falwell, Ralph Reed, Pat Robertson, and their demons play a major part.)
Now, it's your chance to respond, "That is just what Darwinists do!" As if stating it as fact makes it fact.
The funny thing is, Darwin didn't create the theory of evolution. It existed for years before Darwin boarded the Beagle. He came up with the concept that is the core of current evolutionary theory, though: that evolution is driven by natural selection. "Natural selection" is merely the idea that some phenotypes within a population are better adapted at survival than others, within the current environment. When there is little selection pressure, many phenotypes may survive, allowing genetic diversity within a population. When the environment changes, certain phenotypes may provide better adaption to the environment. When two different phenotypes provide survival traits, you may end up with a divergent population, resulting in two species where there used to be one.
Most modern biologists accept this as the driving force behind evolution. There are details that are argued, and there is always points of debate, but the fundamental theory is laid down more-or-less as Darwin painted it.
. . . but are in actuallity mere theory and speculation.
That pretty much removes you from any serious debate. The Theory of Gravity is just a theory, but I don't see you jumping off a very tall cliff with no parachute any time soon. You should go figure out what a "theory" is in the scientific sense before making stupid statements like this.
The way science works is this: if you have an theory that fits the facts, and accurately makes predictions (which is required for testability), that theory survives. Once that theory fails a prediction, the theory is either modified or discarded. Hopefully, there are competing theories to take its place that provide a more accurate prediction mechanism.
The theory of evolution through natural selection has survived a long, long time. It is probably one of the most-tested theories ever. One example: it predates modern genetic theory, and yet the implications of evolution on genetics (the predictions) are borne out by modern genetic research.
The problem with the creationists' appeal to a divine intervention is simple. For it to be a viable scientific theory, it must make predictions that can be tested for accuracy. There is no known method to accurately test for God. You might assume his existence, but you cannot test for him, the the best of my knowledge.
The arguments of the intelligent design crowd invariably reduce to a simple logical mistake: we don't know how it happened, so it must've been God who did it. And when science, using its proven epistemology, pushes back the boundaries of knowledge, the ID crowd responds, "Oh, yes, well, we didn't quite mean that. We meant this other thing that you can't prove." It happened with "irreducible complexity" (which is nothing but the long-disproven "Only God could create the eye" argument gussied up with the terminology of microbiology), it happened with the catastrophists (who use catastrophism to prove the Biblical flood), and will most likely occur with the next pseudo-scientific attempt to subvert education.
Ultimately, that's what this is about: the ability to control the next generation through education. If they are taught to think for themselves, to reason about problems instead of appealing to
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
"We got mutha-fuckin' SNAKES!" -Samuel L Jackson
Gorgeous? Well, you're entitled to your opinion, on that, but you could just have a picture. No mantienence!
Facinating? They slither around, eat, and shed. Wow.
Require little care or expense? So you can get snake food easily? So when then do something wrong, e.g. get out of your home, people won't be scared and will just act like it's a dog? What about when they bite someone? They can't be impossible. They must scare guests.
Fish meet all of those categories as much or more so than a snake, and are not generally dangerous, expensive, or hard to take care of.
Stupidity is like nuclear power, it can be used for good or evil. And you don't want to get any on you.
Something coming from nothing has the same likelyhood as something always existing.
I believe in creationism and evolution. But I do not make statements as fact that are mere theory. I state that my beliefs are such. A belief. I however contend that the author of the article states his belief as a plausible origin of humans is fact instead of more correctly stating it as factual. There is a difference between stating you believe something, and stating that something is the end all defacto.
I'm not calling anyone delusional, but you do find interesting ways to make labels yourself. S I'll leave you to that.
Self proclaimed wannabe geek. You know how it is. Most of us who read this stuff probably fit in that category.
How come snakes are the ancient symbol for medicine that we still use?
--
make install -not war
I refer you to my previous AC posting. The parent rightly predicts hypocrisy; by calling for strict adherence to the principles of the "scientific process" one might as well be calling for ritual sacrifices to the great spaghetti monster during supreme court recesses!
Actually, we have yet to see something evolve into something else. And in the Cambrian explosion, millons of different species did just appear at about the same time.
Darwinism is just a theory at this point, its a theory well grounded in current scientific observation
More like, scientists observe something, and then try to make it fit with the theory of evolution. TFA proves this point exactly. As previous posts point out, this idea is absurd, but is being portrayed as another "proof" of evolution. When can the evolutionary biologists produce some "proof" that is actually supported by evidence, and not just someone's "theory" that animal A evolved trait B because of cause C just because trait B exists in animal A and might have been caused by C. Does anyone see the circular thinking in that kind of argument?
So this is the effect of Snakes on a Brain?
Snakes have clearly lost that battle...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
...I learned from D&D: snakes, dragons, lizards, basilisks, nagas, whatchamacallit. On the other hand D&D also employs orcs, undeads, lycanthropes, arachnoids, beholders, illithids, giants, demons and devils, etc. So my new theory is that evolution is the result of competing for the love of succubi.
Well, you're entitled to your opinion, on that, but you could just have a picture.
True enough, and I'll definitely settle for pictures of the venomous snakes. There's something to be said, though, for watching a snake move around and play inside their enclosures.
Facinating? They slither around, eat, and shed. Wow.
How is that particularly different from cats and dogs? Snakes can actually be quite surprisingly interactive, although, of course, not so much as cats and dogs, admittedly. They do grow attached to your scent, even if they don't necessarily recognize you as a living thing. And watching a snake eat is a lot cooler than watching any other animal eat, to be sure. So is watching a snake shed. It's very elegant.
Require little care or expense? So you can get snake food easily?
Most pet shops have frozen mice and rats for decent prices, or you can order bulk for very cheap. It cost me about a buck a week to feed each snake (they really should only be fed once a week or so).
So when then do something wrong, e.g. get out of your home, people won't be scared and will just act like it's a dog? What about when they bite someone? They can't be impossible. They must scare guests.
*grins*... Well, I do admit these are possible problems. If you take precautions, your snakes usually won't escape, but I think almost every snake owner has a horror story when they look over and see that Monty's escaped from his tank. At least in the case of constricting snakes, snake bites are virtually nothing. Their teeth often are only about a millimetre long: a cat scratch is far more painful than a snake bite. I've been bitten three times and two of them, I didn't even know I had been bitten until I saw a couple droplets of blood.
They do scare some guests, but many people, upon meeting them, convince themselves that they want to hold them and it helps them overcome their fear.
Fish meet all of those categories as much or more so than a snake
To some degree, yes, although you can't very well pick up a fish and interact with it. Fish are also lovely and fascinating in their own right, although I think they typically require more care, too (daily feedings, water control, etc).
The fourth dimension it time, seeing things at past points of time is called 'memory'. Unless, you are trying to see into the future, which is called 'guessing' or 'predicting'.
Think global, act loco
My first, immediate thought was Genesis and how this story would be received by the pro-Creationist demographic that makes up a significant chunk of Fox's core viewers. Let's look at the story:
1) Scientist says that Man and Serpent are linked in their development. This shows that science supports one of the core tales of the beginning of the world in Genesis. Belief in evolution being tied to this is just the scientist's secularist bias. Finer details about this having an influence on small, definitively non-homid primates will be lost on people.
2) Story notes that scientists once thought the useful traits evolved to catch insects or swing between trees, "but recent discoveries from neuroscience are casting doubt on these theories." Once again, proof that scientists know nothing are just secularly biases guessers!
I think it's a neat theory and all, and the article goes into much more depth after the ad-split, but I think it's being played up for sensationalism more than for any actual merit to the theory.
Being deceived by the serpent, that's what triggered the fallacious idea of evolution. It also produced degeneration (hey, look at those beetles! they've lost their wings, that's evolution in action... yeah, sure - you better look again !) and in a couple of generations also erased the knowledge about human origins.
Worse yet is finding out that that very post was the straw that broke the camels back, and it is the single identifiable reason that Allah curses you with an eternity of pain and torment. Now that would be some funny irony.
You are definitely onto something. Color eyesight is important in food gathering too. Trying to find blueberries when colorblind would be difficult. It's amazing how plants like strawberries, blueberries and the like just vibrate visually when hunting for them.
Snakes, I usually notice through their motion, but fruit and vegtables are usually a color/shape identification. This is why carnivores are generally loaded with rods and colorblind, but have excellent sharp vision and motion detection whereas vegetarians are loaded with cones to see colors.
I thought we were all popped out of a "I Dream Of Genie" parody according to the state of Kansas and Family Guy.
What do you mean you can't eat them? I've eaten rattlesnake. Tastes like chicken.
1. Dream up a far-fetched 'movie' that Joe public can make fun of on the internet ....
2. Pay scientists to release study saying far-fetched movie contains the most fearful creature on the planet
3.
4. Profit!
P.S. I think the third step somehow involves 'planes'
A minor quibble, but motion detection is very much a predator ability as well. Consider dogs and cats, who lack the cones for color vision, replacing them with plenty of rods for black-and-white vision. Most often rods are spoken of for night vision, but motion is really what they are sensing, when there's not enough light to fire the color cones. Black-and-white vision "is" motion detection, and works very well for a predator day or night.
Someone told me this long ago ... I don't know if its true but ...
Someone in the Pacific during WWII made a lot of money by having a snake in a big glass bowl or something. He would get someone to hold their hand on the outside of the glass and then make a bet with them that they couldn't kept their hand there while the snake attacked them (safely) from the inside of the glass. I guess the rules were that they had to keep their eyes open and looking at the snake. He very seldom, if ever, lost the bet. Everyone, no matter how big and tough or unafraid of snakes they were, would involuntarily pull their hand away suggesting some sort of inbuilt fear of snakes.
Oh, so that explains it.
2^5
You just described Al Gore!
Sallah: Indy, why does the floor move?
Indiana: Give me your torch.
[Sallah does, and Indy drops it in]
Indiana: Snakes. Why'd it have to be snakes?
Sallah: Asps. Very dangerous. You go first.
I think it's more a matter of whether you happened to inherit certain primitive genes or not.
My mom has always freaked at the sight of a snake -- jumps onto a chair and screams, exactly like some footage I once saw of an orangutan that saw a snake. Even details like the tone of voice and arm-pointing mannerism were identical.
I'm the opposite, I want to catch and mess with it. But I'm a predator/hunter by nature, and have no prey-like reactions at all. (Just like my dad.)
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
Sounds like Chrono Trigger.
With a little rewording, much of what you have said can be used against cats and dogs.
Our daughter has a cat - she admits that our son's boa is a much nicer pet. And her friends all like the snake, and like to hold him.
So when then do something wrong, e.g. get out of your home, people won't be scared and will just act like it's a dog?
You realize that many people are afraid of loose dogs? And the chance of getting hurt by a loose dog is *far* greater than from a non-venimous loose snake.
What you're talking about is the training of and *selection toward* people who CAN be trained to see and *identify* a threat at a distance. Some people can do it; others can't. Not everyone can become a fighter pilot!
I've noticed that the more prey-like a person's instincts are, the LESS likely they are to see, or even be capable of LEARNING to see, such stuff at a distance. It's like they only see what's right in front of them, and have a lot of trouble seeing beyond the first object their vision comes to.
Frex, watch how different personality types drive a car. The predators (the same people who make good fighter pilots) are always watching not only near but far objects, and will see a "threat" (problem on the road, change of traffic pattern, etc.) a LONG way off, often at the limit of the horizon. Conversely the prey types don't look further than one or two cars ahead, and everything beyond that comes as a surprise to them. And I've found they can't be taught to look further out, either.
See my other posts where I talk about predator vs prey reactions to threats like snakes.
As to eyesight being only for tools, as a professional dog trainer I can assure you that normal-sighted dogs have much better distance *and* detail vision than do normal-sighted humans. The notion that dogs are myopic predates the realisation that there is inherited blindness in dogs.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
evolution does not define Darwinism.
No, but likely evolution is a key piece of Darwinism.
And Ironicly Darwin, himself, professed Christianity later in his life.
What is ironic about this? Its natural as you get into your old age to begin thinking of your own end. Its a rather scary thought, so its not unusual to start believing in some kind of life after death. Its a placebo, but it seems to calm those near death.
Are you saying there are snakes in my monitor~!?
Kill your TV
Intelligent Designer put more and more powerful snakes on Earth, which forced primates to evolve into Humans.
Sheesh, everybody knows that!
m
Christianity does not seeek to discredit science, in fact many of us, who believe in God, and a Christ who came to earth as man and died for our sins (genericly put, Christians) believe that evolution works hand in hand with a supreme being, and that science in no way contradicts the plausible existance of such a creator.
Yes, you must, because increasingly people are starting to realize that your religon is bunk. Your 'hand in hand' theory is an attempt to save religion from science. When you can point out in 6th grade (as happened in my Catholic school) the flaws in religous belief, that religion is in serious trouble.
I believe that one day Science will prove out God as a high being that we may not be able to prove exists as of yet with our current level of evolution and knowledge. That doesn't make the belief in such a thing any less plausible. Why can you not see that distiction?
Well you're certainly free to think that. I doubt it will ever happen though, since science isn't leading us to believe there is a god, more and more its leading us to believe there isn't.
But please, continue to cling fantasy. Just leave the rest of us out of it.
We are not descendants of primates. We arrived from the mothership.
the next theory posted will be that we made taller chairs because our wifes are afraid of mice!
Regarding your idea of evolution, I'll paraphrase you:
"The idea the evolution was a conscious process, and almost every instantiation of this idea, is total crap, and should be treated this way."
You, like millions of others, make a mistake in thinking evolution is a conscious process. With genetic manipulation it may become that way in humans, but otherwise it is not. It isn't like the proto-humans/early humans sat around and said "You know these snakes are a deadly threat. We shall form a comittee and decide on how best to evolve to defeat them.". If that had happened we would have snake venom immunity.[1]
IF snakes were a deadly threat, than whatever provided an advantage in escaping the threat would have sufficed. If better vision provided "good enough" advantage for the being with those genes to pass on their DNA then that would happen (with regard to that threat). It could well be that several advantages produced a set of genes that provided multiple avenues of threat avoidance. Particularly if these advantages were useful for more than snakes.
Evolution is explanatory, not proactive. Yet. Sadly, scientists working in the field often use stupid and ridiculous statemets such as "in response to" when they should be saying "as a result of...". The headline for the article here on
If conceived of today evolution would be termed an "emergent phenomenon". The primary principle of evolution is "good enough". If it works, it works - that is all that is required. There is no planning, no intentional process.
Regarding snakes being a threat
1) Venom immunity would not have sufficed. What good is immunity to venom if the wounds get infected and you die from infection? A Committe would have produced venom immunity and then we'd have died out from secondary snake bite infections. A clear example of the phrase "to each and every problem there is solution that is simple and obvious. Said answer is also wrong."
Hearing would have been a likewise poor choice given the sensitivity and limited range of perception it would have produced. Early humans occupied multiple niches and thus were open to many predators of a wide range of "features".
My Suburban burns less gasoline than your Prius.
Some people are known as "tetrachromats" All examples I've heard about have been the mothers of red-green colorblind men. Essentially they have an extra receptor between R & G.
Actually, it's more interesting than that. There are variant genes for the red & green cones that result in the cones absorbing a slightly different spectrum of light. The genes for this are on the X chromosome. A tetrachromat is a woman who has differing genes on her two differing X chromosomes that are somehow both active, leading to either her red cones or her green cones being split between the two variant alleles and allowing for finer detail in distinguishing shades of red or green.
Why I say it's more interesting is that this shows us that beyond the perceptual, cognitive differences between perception of color that we grow up with within our cultures, humans actually have differing physical hardware for perceiving color. We really don't see the world with the same eyes.
Apparently we may also have a 4th (or 5th, depending on pt 2) receptor in the ultraviolet range. However, most of the light in this range is blocked by the alchohol in our eye fluids, so this receptor is mostly pretty useless.
Actually, it's just that our blue cones and our rods have sensitivity in the near UV range. It's the lens of the eye that blocks UV; there's no alcohol in the vitreous humour. People who have cataract surgery that replaces their lens can sometimes see UV in a very limited fashion.
You can read more about aphakia and UV sensitivity here.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
You can find an absolutely fascinating study of how the symbols of our creation myths (primarily Genesis, but others are explored fairly well) seem to reflect our actual evolutionary history in Carl Sagan's Dragons of Eden: Speculations on the Evolution of Human Intelligence.
While it includes some later-disproven assertions (dinosaurs being killed off by a nearby supernova, mainly), most of it is brilliant and engrossing for anyone interested in topics like this.
He postulates that Genesis is really the story of the evolution of human intelligence being selected for because it was necessary for us to defeat the reptiles which preyed on our ancestors. We defeated the serpents -- there are no more legged "dragon" type creatures which every human civilization remembers in legend. However, the price we paid was a separation from the animal kingdom, self-consciousness (the realization that we are naked), and most interesting to me, pain in childbirth because of our big brain-holding heads.
Another interesting bit from the book: In every single culture in the world, the sounds "ssssssss" or "sssshhhhhhhhhh" mean "Everybody Shut Up!", as in, "Quiet! Snake!".
It's a good, quick read. I enjoyed it on a Lufthansa flight from Philly to Frankfurt a few years ago. Highly recommended.
Christmas corresponds with Saturnalia. Many of the Christian holidays were shifted to Roman pagan holidays in the time of Constantine to allow for an easier adoption of Christianity as the state religion.
You better watch out, there may be dogs about . .
Thank you! I find it both amusing and irritating how people tend to think that because I believe in God, I must not think evolution was possible. Fundamentalism is a branch of Christianity that tends to promote every sentence of the bible as literal. Who are we to say God didn't use evolution to create people?
As a Catholic, I understand Genesis to be "the story" of creation, and was written for people at that time. Today, we tend to look for step-by-step guidebooks, we have a much greater need to understand the how's and why's. Back then, in my way of thinking, people just needed to know God created them, they couldn't possibly understand the science behind it. That isn't to say the creation story is a lie, it's a simplified version of the facts. If your kid asks you how babies get here, and he's 3, most people would probably say something like "Mommys and Daddys fall in love, and they kiss and then 9 months later a baby comes out". That's not the full story, but it's not a lie, either, right? In my mind, if my way of thinking is right, this just adds support to the idea behind creation via evolution. The Creator used evolution to create humans, and get them a story their rather simple minds could handle.
This is really just my own idea of the way it happened. But, I know a lot of Christians who would agree that evolution and creation don't have to be at odds. So, for those of you who aren't Christian, next time you find yourself discussing evolution with a Christian, you might want to ask them what they believe, instead of assuming all Christians close their minds to science. Unless, of course, your issue is with their Christianity, rather than their view of science. But, please don't confuse the two issues.
Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will never want for work. - Unknown
Why should they be respected? They are stupid, unpleasant, dangerous creatures.
All animals are "stupid" compared to humans. That does not make them less interesting.
Unpleasant? Maybe if you have a phobia. Our cat is unpleasant. Our snake is pleasant.
Dangerous? Excluding the venimous snakes, all but the largest snakes are not dangerous. And with reasonable care, even the largest species of snakes are not dangerous - just like with dogs, where even the largest breeds of dogs are not dangerous with reasonable care.
They should be feared because they are often very dangerous.
You phobia is showing.
The devil's in the details.
badger badger badger badger badger badger badger badger badger badger badger badger badger badger
.... normal service in ...3 ...2 ...1
IT'S A SNAAAAAKKKEEEEEE! IT'S A SNAAAAAKKKEEEEEE!
I for one welcome our snake overlords.
I took this article to be about our development as early mammals - rodents. Monkeys and snakes have a pointless evolutionary relationship, but you can bet mice are bound to snakes in an evolutionary way.
I agree the article is a reach, but it's not a reach to suggest that our vision, and our instinctual reaction to a snake's attack, could have developed while we were a snake's favorite food, and never left us.
As for why primates developed more complex brains... not seeing a shred of evidence there. Since when does Fox News devote a whole section to "Science" that isn't about the evils of NASA and the global warming "myth"?
Come to think of it, we get that reaction here, both pro and con, when certain subjects come up. Maybe we're not as evolved as we'd like to think.
"Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past." -- George Orwell
to keep you from passing on your genes for poor eyesight.
And snake venoms are so varied that a general immunity is improbable. The group of primates who avoid being bitten by all snakes was likely much larger than the group of primates who survived being bitten by multiple types of snakes.
Planes on a Snake that I saw in one of /.er's signature a while ago. Heh.
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
I did not moderate that post, but I will attempt to explain how it's flamebait. The post is insulting, obnoxious, and manipulative. It short-circuits any real discussion of science and attempts to stir up a flame war about evolution. (Note that this would not have happened under a discussion of quantum mechanics, even though QM is more difficult to accept. It has to be evolution to stir up the maximum animosity connected with politics.) The post presents nothing new, and uses the discredited notion of evolution being "mere theory and speculation". Not a shred of evidence is provided or asked for. No explanation is requested or given. It's all mindless evolution-bashing and personal attacks against imagined opponents.
You might agree with the post. You might even be the poster. But agreeing with something does not make it any less a piece of flamebait.
There were early gnostic sects in Israel and Syria who revered snakes as symbols of Christ. They were condemned as heretics by the founders of the early Catholic church, and not much of their belief or history has survived. They were called Ophites or Sethians.
So you went on that tirade about "self-agnostic complaints," hypocrisy, and the "debate between Darwinism and Creationism" all because the phrase 'according to evolutionary theory' was omitted from a Fox News online article? You've got to be kidding me.
Parent actually believes that a man built an arc large enough to house very species in the world.
Excellent point. When I was six or seven my father worked for the National Forest Service here in the West Coast. I learned a very healthy respect for snakes, and developed a (perhaps unhealthy) curiosity for snakes. They're cool. Had several pet snakes.
If I'm careful about how to hold snakes, or tip-toe around snakes, it's not at all a fear; it's merely an extreme aversion to being bit or poisoned. Some snakes, like the striped racers, do not hurt or even break skin most times with a bite, and they aren't poisonus; no "fear" at all when I recognize the potential pain level.
Seems, for me anyway, that a fear of snakes is learned, not ingrained. If anything, a curiosity about snakes is instinctual: No legs? No arms? No claws or wings or fur or things that other critters use to survive? Why are they still around, then, when I could just pick it up and eat it with... Oh. Man they're quick and can squeeze into hidey-holes before you blink. Shiny, too.
This recent discovery would explain why there are now Snakes on Planes!
"The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men." ~Plato (427-347 BC)
Wow, so I am actually the only one who saw that 3:14-15 ? Scary. I really need to get out more.
Accepting this idea as valid, can we then conclude that wherever you find the most advanced snakes, you will also find the most advanced people? And also that you will find the least advanced people where you find the fewest snakes?
This would seem to indicate that the superior advancements of people would be most prevalently found in the jungles and rainforests of the world. To avoid political incorrectness, I will just say: Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm....
Actually stereo vision is essential to almost any predator, that's one easy way to destinguish a predator species from a prey species -- do both eyes look forward for stereo vision, or sideways for maximum peripheral vision? It's also particularly useful for arboreal species -- you really need to know if that branch you're about to jump to is within reach or not.
In fact, that's the real reason we arboreal primate descendents fear snakes -- it's not predator fear, but when you're swinging from branch to branch and that vine you grab for turns out to be a snake...whoops!
-- Alastair
don't forgetg
dinobot helped
http://www.bwtf.com/albums/beastwars/aaa.sized.jp
That's not the God[1] I know. The Qur'an teaches that Muslims and the so-called People of the Book (Jews and Christians) worship the same God, and as I understand it, Sharia (Islamic law) grants People of the Book the highest status among dhimmis (free non-Muslim citizens).
[1] Allah, a contraction of al-Ilah, is Arabic for "the God". The word is related to Hebrew Elohim also meaning God.
I think you mean:
Mother fucking snakes on the planes
HI-oooo
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
You have beautifully demonstrated why Pascal's Wager is a classic false dilemma. Pascal's Wager goes something like this: you may as well believe in God. If he doesn't exist, then your belief is mostly harmless. If he does exist, then you are doing the right thing. Therefore (the wager part) you are most likely to benefit if you believe. The hole in this argument is that it's a false dilemma: the Wager is artifically restricting you to two choices: to believe in God, or not to believe in God. But what if the true master of the universe is not the Christian God but some other deity, such as Shiva, Buddha, or Bondye? In that case, if you have chosen to believe in God, you have made a serious mistake. Thus Pascal's Wager is fatally flawed.
Snakes are stupid compared to many animals. They slither around and eat. Dogs save people, and guide the blind, and herd animals etc. Cats have enslaved humanity to their care. Horses carry us around. Sharks have laser beams on their heads.
Your cat may not be nice, but it is cute and fluffy. The snake is scaled and slithery. And it has no personality, unlike most cats.
They have no qualm with harming a person. Maybe they normally see no reason to, but they would if they felt like it. Yes, a nonvenomous bite won't kill you, but it won't feel good, either.
My phobia? Fear of dangerous, potentially deadly, things? I'm not all that afraid of snakes, I just don't like them or think this whole "respect, don't fear" thing is particularly reasonable. I respect dogs because they are loyal, caring, intelligent pets, and cats because they have managed to manipulate the human race into feeding and sheltering them, and putting up with their lack of caring.
Stupidity is like nuclear power, it can be used for good or evil. And you don't want to get any on you.
We have yet to see "something pop out of nothing" as creationism suggests.
Yes, and we're not likely to. And we have definite proof that evolution exists.
However, have you heard of the "big bang theory"? It postulates that the entire UNIVERSE popped into existance from nothing, for no reason at all (or rather, no reason that we are ever likely to fathom).
Likewise, it's thought that life itself somehow or other "popped out of" non-living chemicals, despite the fact that nobody has ever been able to replicate this "accident of nature".
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
They have no qualm with harming a person. Maybe they normally see no reason to, but they would if they felt like it.
That describes our cat. And my sister in law's cat is worse.
Yes, a nonvenomous bite won't kill you, but it won't feel good, either.
Bites from cats and dogs don't feel good. I had my dogs attacked twice by loose dogs, with one time requiring a trip to the vet for stitches due to the bites from the other dog. Both times the attacks were unprovoked and my dogs were on a leash. My wife has been attacked and bitten by a doberman. And there always are items in the news where people are mauled or killed by dogs.
Of course, none of these things would keep me from getting more dogs....
Offtopic, but what's the deal with all this "Ruby is the latest fad" business? When a language has been around for over a decade, doesn't it qualify as something slightly more than a craze? It came out about the same time as the initial public release of PHP - 2 years before development on PHP 3 even started. PHP is one of the most widely-known web scripting technologies. It came out a year before ASP was released and 7 years before ASP.NET. And Python came out 5 years before Ruby, it's older than Java or Visual Basic.
Or are all these fads, too? Is nothing real except Scheme, Smalltalk, and Tcl for scripting, and C for everything else?
Yes, a stray dog may be dangerous, but your dog will not be, if you treat it well. A snake will be potentially dangerous no matter what, because they are not domesticated.
Stupidity is like nuclear power, it can be used for good or evil. And you don't want to get any on you.
> ... in the Cambrian explosion, millons of different species did just appear at about the same time
BZZZT! Wrong! As Carl Sagan pointed out, "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." More to the point:
http://www.fsteiger.com/cambrian-explosion.html
> The Cambrian "Explosion": Another Creationist Big Lie
>
> Creationism anti-science propaganda claims that all the major forms of life suddenly appeared during the Cambrian age. The fact is that only primitive life forms existed at that time. Fossils of life forms dating to pre-Cambrian times are rare simply because they did not have hard parts, which developed during the Cambrian period.
>
> Here are the facts, which are based on solid geological evidence, evidence which creationists have not, and can not, refute:
>
> During the Cambrian, no plants, with the exception of algae, existed. Land plants did not come into existence until 200 million years later.
>
> Swimming fishes did not appear until 100 million years after the close of the Cambrian. Reptiles and birds did not exist until 130 million years after the end of the Cambrian. Mammals did not appear until 440 million years after the close of the Cambrian.
Sorry, Anonymous Coward, this disqualifies you from continuing the round -- but thank you for playing!
"All hands, BRACE FOR IMPACT!"
The One-Eye-Pocket-Snake is the CAUSE of evolution!
Forgetting for the moment that chimps are apes and us humans are betrayed angels who have nothing in common with animals (especially not limbic systems!), I'd say those chimpanzees regard the python with reverent awe. Why stop at "respect"? You can go all the way to religious awe, only 3/5ths of a mile, in 10 seconds. Ok, a little Buddhist logic here: Humans are a subset of apes, right? If all apes have religious awe, then human beings are entitled to similar peculiarities in their mental evolution.
``Tension, apprehension & dissension have begun!'' - Duffy Wyg&, in Alfred Bester's _The Demolished Man_
I've had my eyes on snakes ever since Edengate.
"How can you say the gods are merciless when the robbed the snake of its limbs to give other creatures a fighting chance?"
> Likewise, it's thought that life itself somehow or other "popped out of" non-living chemicals, despite the fact that nobody has ever been able to replicate this "accident of nature".
s .html
. . . *yet*.
Bear in mind that, according to most evolution scientists, life on Earth had its origins in the "primordial soup" of the ancient oceans, which would constitute the Biggest Friggin' Petri Dish Ever. That's a hell of a sandbox to play around in, and as long as you aren't in a hurry (let's say a few million years, give or take a millennium) you could come up with any number of viable, self-replicating molecules.
Note my specific wording above: "life on Earth *had its origins in* the 'primordial soup'" in the form of "self-replicating molecules" -- which does NOT imply that complete single-cell organisms or even entire DNA strands just "popped out of" nothing by pure chance. No one in the evolutionary science field has stated otherwise, and evolution does not require the abrupt appearance of The First Amoeba/DNA as the definitive event that kicked off the whole process!
In all likelihood, life as we know it was preceeded by a much more primitive "proto-life" which had some *but not all* of the defining characteristics of life. By logical extension (reduction?) the very first proto-life form would have been nothing more than a simple replicator:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconception
> Nor is abiogenesis (the origin of the first life) due purely to chance. Atoms and molecules arrange themselves not purely randomly, but according to their chemical properties. In the case of carbon atoms especially, this means complex molecules are sure to form spontaneously, and these complex molecules can influence each other to create even more complex molecules. Once a molecule forms that is approximately self-replicating, natural selection will guide the formation of ever more efficient replicators. The first self-replicating object didn't need to be as complex as a modern cell or even a strand of DNA. Some self-replicating molecules are not really all that complex (as organic molecules go).
>
> Some people still argue that it is wildly improbable for a given self-replicating molecule to form at a given point (although they usually don't state the "givens," but leave them implicit in their calculations). This is true, but there were oceans of molecules working on the problem, and no one knows how many possible self-replicating molecules could have served as the first one. A calculation of the odds of abiogenesis is worthless unless it recognizes the immense range of starting materials that the first replicator might have formed from, the probably innumerable different forms that the first replicator might have taken, and the fact that much of the construction of the replicating molecule would have been non-random to start with.
"All hands, BRACE FOR IMPACT!"
Oh Whacking Day,
Oh Whacking Day,
Our hallowed snake skull-cracking day.
We'll break their backs,
Gouge out their eyes,
Their evil hearts, we'll pulverize.
Oh Whacking Day,
Oh Whacking Day,
May God bestow His grace on thee.
Excellent point.
Excelent Post. In fact, that's one of the best explanations of how the bible can be the word of God, but still not give exactly the same information as we observe through science. God is perfect, and as part of his perfection, he understands that he made humans imperfect, but also allows for their imperfection when explaining things to them. There is no true conflict between science and religion, they are simply different ways of trying to understand God. Science tries to understand God by determining the way his creations work, and religion attempts to use logic to extrapolate an understanding of God through life philosophies.
That which is done from love exists beyond good and evil
I find this whole theory very slithery for just this one reason. I can understand why primates would want to keep off snakes. Their bites can be deadly. However, there aren't that many snakes who prey on primates. Other than an anaconda or a python which snakes can eat animals as large as primates? So the idea that there was an evolutionary arms race between primates and snakes seems silly to me.
Sorry, you are the one who is disqualified. That website you cite isn't exactly from an expert. I wouldn't be surprised if it's your own website. Please cite something that is from a credible source. Thanks.
The Snake as the Bad Guy has been mentioned by both Konrad Lorenz (ethologist) and Vladimir Propp (folklorist).
Also, in mythology the Snake would often swallow humans which is highly unlikely in nature.
So yes, makes sense.
WYSIWIG, but what you see might not be what you need
However, have you heard of the "big bang theory"? It postulates that the entire UNIVERSE popped into existance from nothing, for no reason at all (or rather, no reason that we are ever likely to fathom).
It states that all matter was at a single point, and thus exploded. It doesn't attempt to say where that matter came from. (Of course, its possible it didn't come from anywhere, it just always was).
Likewise, it's thought that life itself somehow or other "popped out of" non-living chemicals, despite the fact that nobody has ever been able to replicate this "accident of nature".
Just because we haven't figured something out yet doesn't mean we won't. There was a time we didn't know about nuclear weapons, yet they are here now. And none of it proves that a god is required for any of it to happen.
Christianity does not seek to discredit science
Just the parts of science that explain the diversification of species.
when you obviously know little about it
Why thank you for that sweeping generalization about me. Do you know what 'Ad Homonym' means?
"We are all geniuses when we dream"
- E.M. Cioran
The article is written in such a way as to suggest that the 'comitte for the evolution of primates' got together and decided what to evolve. While the researchers probably understand that isn't what happened, the journalist very obviously doesn't.
What actually happened, is that as primates mutated, some had better sight, some had worse, some had other traits. The ones with better sight survived (being eaten by snakes, and/or any other number of possible fatal destinies) at a better rate than those with worse sight, and passed the better sight on to their descendants, enabling them to also survive at a higher rate. As those lines with worse sight survived less often, less of them were able to reproduce, slowly removing those traits from the overall distribution.
There again you prove that you don't know what you are talking about. Christianity in no way has anything to do with conridicting "an" explaination for the diversification of species. I have no problem with science and "an" explaination/theory of how species diversify, in fact I agree with it. Evolution within species is easy to "prove" and can be seen at many stages. This is very different from the broad ranging beliefs of the "origins of life," and not that of the, "origins of species." The difference lies in the belief that all things were created by natural selection, or wether or not some other force or forces can be involved directly or indirectly in the creation of life.
Please understand the difference.
Self proclaimed wannabe geek. You know how it is. Most of us who read this stuff probably fit in that category.
And Pope John Paul II espoused evolution. So what? Darwin was a Christian. So what? Where is the contradiction?
Only Bible Literalists claim that evolution is incompatible with Christianity. Bible Literalists are a tiny percentage of Christians (They sometimes argue that they are the only TRUE Christians).
There is a storythat Darwin renounced evolution on his deathbed, but is not true. Lady Hope spread the story, but she was not present for his final illness. Darwin's daughter Henrietta, who was there, said Lady Hope lied.
That explains why so many christians want to ban evolution in public schools, and why christians attack proponents of evolution with various kinds of either ad homonym attacks (such as what you have been doing) or attempts to paint evolution itself as non-scientific (like a big hypocrisy). The problem is that none of the arguments against evolution, ad homonym or otherwise, has any relevant substance. That, by the way, doesn't mean they're wrong or that god doesn't exist - just that they don't contribute anything relevant or useful.
For example, you expand on your personal beliefs as evidence that stances against evolution are perfectly rational, perhaps believing that anti-evolution rhetoric will appear rational as well, and perhaps thinking that various forms of ad homonym attacks will somehow gain legitimacy as well. That doesn't actually work. As soon as you resort to the phrase "you don't know what you're talking about" or something like that, people pretty much smell fear, so to speak.
Another strategy that also lacks relevant substance is that the notion that the idea that god created everything is another scientific explanation, and somehow has a place in science. This is a 'lever' strategy, attempting to gain a credible foothold on scientific ground, in the hopes that the religious point of view will gain credibility similar to the scientific method, and use that credibility to again discredit the theory of evolution. Again this isn't relevant since the theory of evolution is a *scientific* theory, not a religious belief (another irrelevant angle used by religious proponents is that evolution is about as religious as a belief in god, a tack which ignores the scientific method altogether).
All these attempts to bring god into the discussion just aren't relevant to the theory of evolution. God has no place in science, since, as an astronomer friend of mine once said (quoting one of his professors), "science has nothing at all to do with truth". Science is about science and the scientific method. Evolution is a scientific theory regarding how life develops, and yes it postulates that humans evolved from earlier forms of primates. As a scientific theory, it says nothing at all about god. That doesn't mean god has no place in someone's life, just not in a scientific theory.
Besides, if one day the scientific method does reveal the nature of god, what if it turns out the christians had it wrong all along? And the flying spagetti monster did guide the hand of evolution after all? Or what if Krishna did?
"We are all geniuses when we dream"
- E.M. Cioran
I would have thought the strongest evolutionary pressure for stereoscopic vision is simply gravity. Snakes might be an occassional threat but for a tree dwelling creature falling would be a greater risk. Second would be finding the next meal -- this is where the colour vision comes in. Snakes? Snakes are reptiles with a slower metabolism ... and hence a long time between feeds. Mammals need to eat often. I would think the snakes would be at a disadvantage in such an environment.
Obligatory Futurama quote: "you win again gravity", Zap
Bitter and proud of it.
Yet nobody has (YET, you're right) replicated it. If we find no life anywhere else in the universe, what then? Asimov's Eternals are to blame?
You say "an accident" created life, I say occam's razor says that's unlikely.
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
I never said a God was required. I only say that it makes more sense from a logical standpoint; it can't be proven. Where did the original singularity come from? There wasn't supposed to be any such thing as time or space before it, if what I read (and I'm not a cosmologist) is to be believed.
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
You should check his biography before making such an ignorant and uninformed statement.
Suffice to say that Isaac Newton was an alchemist. no scientist will know it all, and all of them may say or do folly things if they go stray from thei main body of knowledge.
But to go as far as saying what you said is completely idiotic.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.