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!
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.
"OK, evolutionists, let's hear your howls of protest and derision."
I don't necessarily believe that is the exact reason for vision changes. Seems maybe a better explanation (and I have no proof of this) is that eyesight may have gotten better because certain foods that they adapted to eat blended with the environment, so that was necessary. But it doesn't matter because it is all part of intellectual discussion/debate. It also is not religion. Religion has nothing to go on. Science has millions of years of fossil evidence. Faith isn't science. It is blind hope for people who feel really guilty.