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!
So is "Snakes On A Plane" (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0417148/) the story of the next step in snake-spurred human evolution? Go Samuel L Jackson, go... use your evolutionary powers!
A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing.
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
Given the instinctive fear of snakes that humans possess, coupled with the intense fear that a large portion of the population has towards air travel, I'd say the information found in this informative documentary starts to make sense.
I'll be honest, we're throwing science against the wall to see what sticks. -Cave Johnson
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$k8 tH!$
And we wonder why there is a debate between Darwinism and Creationism. I do find it interesting that those who propose to believe in a scientific answer, which defines itself on proof of fact, that they will make "matter of fact" statements that have not been proven as such, but are in actuallity mere theory and speculation.
Now I assume this will cause the generic, self-agnostic complaints and personal insults, but let them come. The same thing you complain about those on the other side of the fence, you do yourself as well. Complain that creationism has no scientic "proof" then deny science when making sweeping "matter of fact" statements about a theory that you subscribe too.
Let the hypocrisy fly!
And you want to be treated like adults.
Self proclaimed wannabe geek. You know how it is. Most of us who read this stuff probably fit in that category.
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.
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.
Badger badger badger badger...
...a snake participates in an arms race, I'll never know.
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
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!).
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.
Bad joke. Go viral marketing!
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
"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
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'.
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.
Not especially funny, but not offtopic
...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.
Fear of Samuel L. Jackson may drive post-human evolution it seems then?
Promote Charity on Myspace, Show Your Colours!
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/
"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.
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
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! -----
...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
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
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."
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.
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
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!
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.
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.
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.
Sounds like Chrono Trigger.
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?
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
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 . .
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.
Parent actually believes that a man built an arc large enough to house very species in the world.
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.
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?
> ... 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?"
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.
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
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.
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.
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.