Posted on 07/20/2006 6:58:11 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
It's all jibber-jabber. I don't want to hear no more of this jibber-jabber, do you understand? [/TIC]
That's the beauty of evolution theory, none of the hypothesis they dream up needs to be proven,and it doesn't matter if it clashes with all other hypothesis.
Someone caught a wierd looking fish with human-like teeth the other day. Just wait- it's only a matter of time before a "hypothesis" develops of this previously unknown fish species being the missing link.
Evolution is a theory, and as such it has repeatedly made a myriad of successful predictions .
it is neither proven fact nor universally accepted science.
About 99% of biologists accept the theory of evolution - that's about as universal as acceptance of a theory can get. Thousands of scientific papers have been published on the subject, while virtually none have been published regarding any competing hypothesis.
Its flaws and holes have been repeatedly pointed out.
These "flaws and holes" are generally fabrications or exaggerations by those who are ideologically bent on dismantling the theory, and are not grounded in logic or good science. Most such "flaws and holes" have been addressed repeatedly, and aren't flaws at all.
Rather than address those flaws and holes, proponents of the hypothesis lump their critics in the category of "uneducated fanatics" and go back to spinning fantastic elaborations of the theory.
Well, only when the critics repeatedly bring up the same imagined "flaws" without researching why they aren't really "flaws". Someone who refuses to learn from their mistakes quite likely rightfully earns the label of "undeducated fanatic".
The fish was a well-known South American species related to the piranha called a pacu. Its teeth are an evolutionary adaptation for crushing seeds.
Prove that statement.
Dragons of Eden placemark
LMAO! It's teeth are an "evolutionary adaptation??" LMAO!!
A monkeys anus is an 'evolutionary adaptation" as well a monkeys fingers. They developed to fling feces at evolutionists.
I wonder if they tried to explain exactly how many primates were eaten by venemous snakes, which tend to be too small to eat even small primates. I thought close up vision was more useful to keep from hitting your head on obstacles, or stubbing your toes on rocks, or determining if you had food or junk in your hand before eating, or seeing if you had the best looking mate available, etc.
BTW, the fish doesn't have molars, it has icisors, for tearing flesh, not "crushing seeds"
"snakes were likely the first serious predators of modern mammals"
BALDERDASH.
Mammals eveolved in the mid Mesozoic era. The "Age if Reptiles" That meant dinosaurs. Not all dinosaurs were giants and my guess is smaller dinosaurs were a far greater threat to evolving mammals than snakes.
Tests done on pirmates which have never been exposed to snakes indicate no inherent fear of snakes - rather curiosity.
Ophidiophobia is an acuired trait and I doubt if one can learn much from a poisonous bite as an individual. And, as a group, the immediate consequences of a snake nite might not be manifest for some time.
I think this woman is stretching for things on this subject.
Aside from Judaeo-Christian society, which is fixated on the Garden of Eden episode, MOST earliers societies didn't fear snakes - they worshipped them as Gods.
So I think this person had better go back to the drawing board.
Not true. Ophiophobia is an acquired trait in primates and mice tossed into a snake cage show no apparent fear of the snake.
As an educated biologist, I believe you totally.
However I htink this woman's theory about snakes and primates and mammals is idiotic.
OK, let's be sure that everyone understands how absurd this hypothesis is.
No simian prior to the "appearance" of poisonous snakes could see color. Snakebites had to be so common and invariably fatal that EVERY simian with black and white vision was ultimately wiped out and could not reproduce, while ONLY those that could see color survived and produced surviving offspring. NONE of the colorblind simians were able to survive snakebite, while most of the color-seers successfully avoided snakes.
Never mind that many individuals would never encounter a poisonous snake before reproducing, or lived in any area with few, if any, poisonous snakes. And never mind that some simian individual had to have an accidental gene mutation that -- voila! -- produced whole rods or cones or whatever that could detect colors along with the brain cells capable of interpreting them.
OK, evolutionists, let's hear your howls of protest and derision. Your religion has been questioned! Paging John Derbyshire!
They do.
Trust me. I have several degrees in biology.
Evolution is a fact (undeniable evidences for common descent) and a theory (explanatory mechanisms). It has moved well beyond the hypothesis stage.
Rather than address those flaws and holes, proponents of the hypothesis lump their critics in the category of "uneducated fanatics" and go back to spinning fantastic elaborations of the theory.
The "flaws and holes" have been addressed on every thread for about the last seven years on FR. The same "critics" show up dumb as a stump professing to know nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing of what has been posted in rebuttal to them thus far. What kind of science works this way? What do you learn by knowing nothing, nothing contrary to your cult literature?
"The ability to spot venomous snakes may have played a major role in the evolution of monkeys, apes and humans"
Yes. And one day monkees may fly right out of my butt.
This is just another idea by a scientist and we will never have enough facts to either dispute it or back it up since these were one-time events in the distant past. Can't these guys find something more productive to do with their time?
Oh, wait. Let me save you guys the trouble. Okay, I don't know anything about the scientific method, I am disparaging these scientists that are doing noble and valuable work, all science proceeds from ideas such as these, blah, blah, blah.
A Young Earth Creationist creationist?
Sounds more redundant than necessary.
This hypothesis is absurb for a whole host of reasons.
This like Eric Von Daneken's "Chariot of the Gods" is to history.
But that has nothing to do with the validity of evolution, just this woman's wacky interpretation of it.
Here's the evidence:
According to a Gallup Poll, 95% of scientists across all disciplines accepted the theory of evolution in one form or another.
In fields specifically related to evolutionary science, (e.g. biology, paleontology, etc.) it is suggested the proportion is even higher. Take for example, NCSE's Project Steve , where over 600 PhD. scientists named Steve have signed a list supporting the ToE, whereas groups like the Discovery Institute have generated lists of similar length of creationists of all names. Less than 1% of scientists are named Steve; so you do the math.
If a significant proportion of scientists reject the theory of evolution, and instead support creationism or intelligent design, where are all the mainstream journal entries on this topic? None exist. Search New Scientist or Nature - you won't find them.
Also, a very partial list of mainstream scientific organizations that have issued statements in support of the tenet that evolution is mainstream science theory, whereas ID and creationism are not.
Let's face it - in the scientific world, evolution reigns supreme (for good reason) - ID and creationism are afterthoughts that are not supported by the wealth of available evidence - hence their lowly scientific status.
You have nothing but supposition to assert such.
A better statement would be: "Its teeth are presumably an evolutionary adaptation for crushing seeds."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.