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. "
Unfortunately for the bible-thumpers, this isn't actually a theory, it's just an idea. The idea that among a litany of predatory creatures human beings were primarily pushed by one - that although fear-inducing is relatively harmless on the scale of tribes and socities - is a bit of a stretch.
If this is pursued by scientists we will likely find that, yes, there are specific factors involved in competition between humans and snakes that drove specific selections that persist in modern humans, but to suggest that all of "pre-human evolution" was driven primarily by snakes is a bit silly.
If you haven't foed me yet, what are you waiting for?
So what you are saying is that our fear of snakes caused us to incorporate them into our myths and legends as the stereotypical "bad guy"? Makes sense to me.
Uhmmm... the hypothesis, even if correct, doesn't say that snakes lost their legs due to meddling in the affairs of a couple of innocent humans.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Within the context of the original post (the evolving to see in 4 dimensions thing), it suggests to me that he meant seeing all 3 spacial dimensions. Stereoscopic vision is not the same as that. It just means your brain is capable of recognizing angles on objects and interpreting them for you as some level of depth. People with poor depth perception don't necessarily have anything wrong with their eyes. They see the same thing everyone else does, their brains just don't interpret the angles properly.
You can prove quite easily that you can only see two dimensions of space. Simply place a cube on a table, lower and center your vision so it's pinpointed right in the center of one side, and note that you see a square, not a cube. Without the angles to suggest depth, you're not capable of perceiving three dimensions at all.
If you haven't foed me yet, what are you waiting for?
Ignoring the fact that your entire post is false, and apparently nothing more than a nasty, disrespectful attempt to mislead people about the topic, it wouldn't matter if scientific findings DID prove the bible correct word for word. That would simply be the way the universe is. So be it.
Unlike religionists, real scientists just want to know the truth, and they're not scared that it might shatter their own preconcieved notions, so they don't "shift" the truth based on that (and when they do, they get found out, discredited, and made a laughing stock).
If you haven't foed me yet, what are you waiting for?
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.
Meh, depends on how you think about it. I doubt "eternity" - and I sure hope their is one, and that I get to go to the good part - is hardly based on the same idea of linear time that we now understand. Our perception of time requires a beginning and an end. Eternity - the way I've figured it - probably exists outside of linear time, a sort of everything-happens-at-the-same-time kind of non-linear eternity.
But who knows. Right now, my biggest fear is, come my death, meeting Allah, Joseph Smith, L. Ron Hubbard, Buddah, Zeus, Zenu, or any other number of Gods or prophets I've chosen to not believe in, who will laugh and send me to whatever version of hell they sport.
ME: Hey! Sup Allah, Mohammad... How you guys been?
Allah: Wrong religion bitch!
Me: *Shit...*
Excuse my speling.
Making The Bar Project
How come snakes are the ancient symbol for medicine that we still use?
--
make install -not war
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.