Fear of Snakes May Have Driven Pre-Human Evolution 553
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. "
This only highlights mankind's TRUE FEAR (Score:5, Funny)
Re:This only highlights mankind's TRUE FEAR (Score:2, Funny)
I think that should read:
Snakes...ON A PLANET
Re:This only highlights mankind's TRUE FEAR (Score:5, Funny)
Re:This only highlights mankind's TRUE FEAR (Score:2)
mmmm... tasty carnage mud....
Re:This only highlights mankind's TRUE FEAR (Score:2, Funny)
lets hope he lasts longer than he did in Deep Blue Sea and Jurassic Park
Re:This only highlights mankind's TRUE FEAR (Score:5, Funny)
Re:This only highlights mankind's TRUE FEAR (Score:2)
Re:Insider Scoop (Score:2, Funny)
(hisssss!!!! hisss!!!!)
The snakes in Spain stay mainly in the plane.
Re:Insider Scoop (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Insider Scoop (Score:4, Funny)
Would you like them on a train?
Would you like them on a boat?
Would you like them in your coat?
Would you like them on the road?
Would you like them in a commode?
I would not like them, Samuel J,
I do not like snakes any way.
Re:This only highlights mankind's TRUE FEAR (Score:5, Funny)
Finallly (Score:5, Funny)
And lawyers/politicians/managers are descended from snakes.
At least its an explanation of the uneasy feeling I get when I see Darl Mcbride.
I knew that already... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:I knew that already... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:I knew that already... (Score:5, Funny)
Scientist 1: How'd you like my paper on "Impact of herpetological influence on anthropological evolution?"
Scientist 2: Bad news, dude! The "bible-thumpers" have glommed off your hypothesis! Something in Genesis about chicks stomping on snakes. Sounds fetishy. Anyway, we can't afford to lend these cretins any legitimacy. You'll have to think of something else.
Scientist 1: Crap! Back to the drawing board. How about 'gators? They're hella scary!
Re:I knew that already... (Score:4, Insightful)
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).
Re:I knew that already... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Read Sagan's 'Dragons of Eden' (Score:5, Interesting)
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 [amazon.com].
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.
Re: I knew that already... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: I knew that already... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I knew that already... (Score:5, Interesting)
At second - another thought. Birds of prey. Keeping alive from them requires similar improvements in vision. It also requires much more.
Current primates do not cooperate to defend against snakes. At the same time they cooperate even on interspecies level to keep track and warn the pack about forest eagles. There is some extremely good footage narrated by David Attenborough on that (forgot in which one of his movies). The most important characteristic of primates is their socialness. In fact the size of a primate brain for the lower primates is directly proportional to the group size (once again quoting Attenborough).
So the primary driver in primate development should be the predators which improved their pack social cohesion and group communication. Eagles, tree mammal predators from the polecat family and to some extent cats.
Not snakes.
Re:I knew that already... (Score:3, Interesting)
predatory birds evolved much later than snakes, after primates developed steroscopic vision.
Re:I knew that already... (Score:3, Insightful)
Now, for the color, I thought it was a trait for some fruit-picker beings, to be able to recognize good fruits from bad ones.
I never imagined it was for the snakes
Re:I knew that already... (Score:5, Interesting)
The thing is, the snake is by no means a uniformly malign figure in mythology. Quite the opposite; they are often beneficent. The snake has other symbolic potentials, with its ability to shed its skin (rebirth) and to form a circle by biting its tail (eternity).
Chinese dragons are conspicuously snake-like, and share the common mythical snake role as bringers of wisdom. In fact Genesis, if you read it closely, is clearly a compilation of myths. It is clear that in the source material for the temptation story, the snake plays exactly the bringer of wisdom role in the story ("Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made." Gen 3:1). But with irony that is a particular characteristic of Jewish scripture, that gift is a source of misfortune.
Stories of dual natured gifts are not uncommon in folklore and myth. The point of these stories is pretty much the same: life is full of pain and toil, then you die. But on the other hand if you could choose otherwise, there would be a price you might not be so happy to pay: without death children are not born, illness and suffering does not end. Wisdom is a particular source of pain, but as the generations of scribes and their successor Talmudists, it's also a source or pleasure and comfort. There is no wisdom without toil and suffering.
Our way of looking at these stories, Genesis in particular, has been diminished by religious ideology. To the point that those of us raised in the Judeo-Christian tradition think nothing is more natural than to hate and revile snakes. The snake figure in Genesis was never equated with Satan until a much later date. "Satan" comes from the Hebrew word for "obstacle" or "adversary". Read carefully: the snake's part in the story puts enmity between him and humanity, but it does not unambigiously put him in the role of The Enemy; he could equally be seen as a tragic figure that nudged humanity down an alternative path of pain and enlightenment.
In any case, to bring this back to the topic at hand, it is certainly not the case the myth and religion can be used to show an atavistic revulsion to snakes that may have an evolutionary basis.
Re:I knew that already... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:I knew that already... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:I knew that already... (Score:2)
I understand this is an internally self-consistent position.
However, since we don't have a choice ab
Re:I knew that already... (Score:3, Insightful)
This is the kind of thinking that is central in stories of this kind. Immortality, at least if other aspects of our existence aren't also changed, would be a form of suffering worse than death.
However, it should be pointed out in all fairness that boredom is a problem that is tied to our brains. It's a hardware problem. Our brains are wired to stop paying attentio
Re:I knew that already... (Score:3, Interesting)
Dude, we live 100 years and don't seem to care what happens 25 years down the line.
Re:I knew that already... (Score:4, Insightful)
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...*
Worse yet... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Worse yet... (Score:3, Funny)
Me: *Shit...*
Re:I knew that already... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:I knew that already... (Score:5, Interesting)
Of course, this didn't always happen. In many cases the beliefs and rituals of the previous civiliation were modified by Christianity. It's not just coincidental -- almost all civilizations/religions have a feast time at the end of winter, end of harvest, during the winter. There are *human* reasons for this. Most times it's either for rationalizing the unknown or just an excuse to feast. So we have Christian feasts that coincide with the Saturnalia and other ancient ceremonies. Maybe when we sit down for a Christmas dinner some ancient god nods and thanks us for remembering. Maybe when we recognize the Resurrection of Christ some primal force awakens and pushes the new plants out.
But back to snakes. The story of Genesis is old and borrows heavily from previous traditions. To condemn the snake by selecting one reference is wrong though, as the snake/serpent is considered wise throughout other books in *YOUR* Bible (E.g., John 3:14). Read your Book!
How to become a popular scientist (Score:5, Funny)
2. Seek publicity
3.
4. Profit!
Re:How to become a popular scientist (Score:5, Funny)
Re:How to become a popular scientist (Score:4, Funny)
Re:How to become a popular scientist (Score:2)
Step 2: Marketing
Step 3: ???
Step 4: Profit!
As a scientist, you're responsible for Step 3.
Re:How to become a popular scientologist (Score:3, Funny)
Conventional wisdom (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Conventional wisdom (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Conventional wisdom (Score:4, Funny)
Some people also have a fourth, I've heard.
Tetra and quinta? chromatic humans (Score:5, Informative)
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.
RRGB, RGGB, and Aphakia. (Score:5, Interesting)
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. [guardian.co.uk]
Re:Conventional wisdom (Score:2)
It's not obvious why our lineage would co-evolve with snakes any more than any other mammalian lineage would.
One obvious reason to me would be habitat. Maybe the primate lineage occupied the same areas as snakes? Maybe other ma
Re: Conventional wisdom (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not sure that's a good argument. It's not like evolution happens on demand.
Our own upright posture, opposable thumbs, and big brains didn't all evolve at the same time, but we still build our lifestyle around their conjunction.
Re:Conventional wisdom (Score:2)
Re: Conventional wisdom (Score:2)
Possibly it wasn't so much an advantage as happenstance, not selected against because the early mammal lifestyle didn't much need the extra colors. (Because they were nocturnal, IIRC, but I haven't got time to dig out the article right now to verify that.)
Also, there may be an advantage in losing stuff that isn't needed, if it reduces the energy cost of building/maintaining/operating the organism.
Re:Conventional wisdom (Score:3, Insightful)
2D-3D? (Score:2)
Re:2D-3D? (Score:2)
Let the evolution race begin!
Re:2D-3D? (Score:2, Informative)
Theoretically, this would not be possible anyway given our current configuration and understanding of light. To be able to see in 3d, you'd have to somehow pick up light that was being deflected away from your eyes, or that was blocked by foreground objects in your field of vision.
Re:2D-3D? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:2D-3D? (Score:3, Insightful)
You can
Re:2D-3D? (Score:3, Funny)
- Picasso
Re:2D-3D? (Score:3, Insightful)
Hence percieve, not see.
Re:2D-3D? (Score:2, Interesting)
Your memory stores information about the passing of time and so you can see what something used to look like and how it looks now.
For an often strange example, go and visit your childhood neighbourhood and you will see all the things that have changed since.
Re:2D-3D? (Score:2)
Think of it like this... When you look at a photograph, a 2d captured moment, you can still consciously determine what lies closer or further than a given point most of the time. Some unusual lighting effects or geometry may throw you off, but you know the tiny tree belongs much further away than the giant mouse in the foreground.
Now extend that to 4d perception - Our eyes give us a pseudo-3d snapshot of the
Why snakes? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Why snakes? (Score:2)
Re:Why snakes? (Score:3, Informative)
instinct (Score:2)
Re:instinct (Score:2)
Sure, but unlike any of the other predators mentioned in this discussion, we make tools, and we're also much better at building shelters and forming communities for mutual benefit. A man vs. a tiger isn't a fair fight, but a dozen men with good firearms in vehicles vs. a tiger also isn't a fair fight
Deep rooted genetic fears (Score:2)
It makes sense because there's no
This Idea = Bogus (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:This Idea = Bogus (Score:3, Informative)
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?)
Because evolution does not provide an organism with what it needs to survive and reproduce. The organism takes what it gets from the mutation lottery and does the best it can.
However, I agree, it seems very unlikely that snakes could be an explanatory factor in the develop
Re:This Idea = Bogus (Score:2)
The majority of snakes that feasibly can eat humans (think anacondas, burmese pythons, reticulated pythons, and perhaps scrub pythons) are not venomous but constrictors. While venomous snakes will attack us out of defense if threatened, to my knowledge, none of them are large enough to eat us, and thus it is unlikely that they would seek us out with the intention of killing us, unlike the aforementioned species.
your perception of evolution == Bogus (Score:4, Insightful)
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".
How exactly... (Score:5, Funny)
Bullshit (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Bullshit (Score:2)
Now a clever monkey, maybe having seen some relatives die of snake bites, might decide to squash the snake with a rock. Or maybe it would think that the snake would be a better meal than that piec
Re:Bullshit (Score:2)
In other words, 1) there's no evidence, and 2) there's no uniqueness to snakes. So this theory needs to go back to the drawing board.
Alternatives? (Score:2)
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 ev
Far-fetched. (Score:5, Interesting)
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
Re:Far-fetched. (Score:2)
Good vision might help there.
Re:Far-fetched. (Score:2)
I'm not arguing the theory is correct, just that it is self-consistent and sounds plausible.
One of the recent language studies ties in to this (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Here's the link Re:One of the recent ... (Score:2)
Hence the most fearsome terrorist organization is: (Score:2, Funny)
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
One of our basic instincts (Score:2)
Did Rupert Murdoch Approve this Article? (Score:4, Interesting)
Snakes (Score:2)
Coincidence?
Hard to swallow (Score:2)
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 woul
Samuel L Jackson (Score:2)
Fox News Reports (Score:3, Interesting)
Snakes being a major force in the evolution of mammals including humans? I want to see some pretty strong evidence first.
How Chimpanzees React to Snakes - Very Interested (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Obligatory Indiana Jones Quote (Score:3, Funny)
Sallah: Asps. Very dangerous. You go first.
Snakes on Staff (Score:4, Insightful)
Inbuilt fear of snakes (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re:"Matter of Fact" (Score:2)
Re:"Matter of Fact" (Score:2)
Re:"Matter of Fact" (Score:2, Insightful)
So while Darwinism is just a theory at this point, its a theory well grounded in current scientific observation, while Creationism is not..
Re:"Matter of Fact" (Score:2)
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 spe
No wonder (Score:5, Insightful)
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
Re:No wonder (Score:3, Funny)
Particularly the Olympians, the family of ancient Greek gods headed by the great Zeus, all of whom resided in their divine palace atop Mount Olympus.
I don't know if there is *any* documentation to back this up, but it is not unreasonable to suppose that the Greeks eventually abandoned their religion when something like this happened....
Sum Dudius Extremis, intrepid mountain climber: Yo, my fellow excellent Greek dudes, I have, like, scaled every high peak and shee
Re:It makes sense! (Score:3, Insightful)
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 a
Re:It makes sense! (Score:2)
Re:It makes sense! (Score:2)
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 scare
Re:One deeply confused person right here (Score:2, Interesting)
Natural selection doesn't work that way. Pre-human primates focused on staying alive. It could be that the ones who were better at detecting snakes survived and the others didn't, but we humans are the first species that seem to be capable of directing the evolution
Re:Slight Problem With Theory? (Score:3, Interesting)