| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"johac" |
| Date: |
22 Jul 2006 03:23:46 AM |
| Object: |
Snake-spotting may have helped us evolve -study |
You have to watch out for snakes, especially the talking kind.
---
Snake-spotting may have helped us evolve -study
Thu Jul 20, 5:03 PM ET
Snakes may make people jump for a good reason -- human close-up vision
may have evolved specifically to spot the reptiles, researchers reported
on Thursday.
Humans, monkeys and other primates have good color vision, large brains,
and use their vision to guide reaching and grasping.
But while some scientists believe these characteristics evolved together
as early primates used their hands and eyes to pick fruit and other
foods, Lynne Isbell, a professor of anthropology at the University of
California Davis, believes they may have evolved to help primates evade
snakes.
"A snake is the only predator you really need to see close up. If it's a
long way away it's not dangerous," said Isbell, who has published her
theory in the Journal of Human Evolution.
Neurological studies show the structure of the brain's visual system
seems to be well connected to brain structures involved in vigilance,
fear and learning, she said.
Mammals evolved about 100 million years ago and fossils of snakes with
mouths big enough to eat those mammals appear at about the same time,
she pointed out.
Other predators such as big cats, and hawks and eagles, evolved later.
And then venomous snakes evolved about 60 million years ago, which
forced primates to get better at detecting them.
"There's an evolutionary arms race between the predators and prey.
Primates get better at spotting and avoiding snakes, so the snakes get
better at concealment, or more venomous, and the primates respond,"
Isbell said.
And there are no dangerously venomous snakes on Madagascar, and lemurs,
which only live on that large island and which have poor eyesight, have
not evolved much in other ways in the past 60 million years, either,
Isbell added.
---
http://tinyurl.com/m59a7
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities"
-Voltaire
Contact - Throw a .net over the .com
.
|
|
| User: "Kate " |
|
| Title: Re: Snake-spotting may have helped us evolve -study |
22 Jul 2006 07:43:02 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 22 Jul 2006 01:23:46 -0700, johac <jhachmann@sbcglobal.com>
wrote:
You have to watch out for snakes, especially the talking kind.
---
Snake-spotting may have helped us evolve -study
Thu Jul 20, 5:03 PM ET
Snakes may make people jump for a good reason -- human close-up vision
may have evolved specifically to spot the reptiles, researchers reported
on Thursday.
Humans, monkeys and other primates have good color vision, large brains,
and use their vision to guide reaching and grasping.
But while some scientists believe these characteristics evolved together
as early primates used their hands and eyes to pick fruit and other
foods, Lynne Isbell, a professor of anthropology at the University of
California Davis, believes they may have evolved to help primates evade
snakes.
"A snake is the only predator you really need to see close up. If it's a
long way away it's not dangerous," said Isbell, who has published her
theory in the Journal of Human Evolution.
Neurological studies show the structure of the brain's visual system
seems to be well connected to brain structures involved in vigilance,
fear and learning, she said.
Mammals evolved about 100 million years ago and fossils of snakes with
mouths big enough to eat those mammals appear at about the same time,
she pointed out.
Other predators such as big cats, and hawks and eagles, evolved later.
And then venomous snakes evolved about 60 million years ago, which
forced primates to get better at detecting them.
"There's an evolutionary arms race between the predators and prey.
Primates get better at spotting and avoiding snakes, so the snakes get
better at concealment, or more venomous, and the primates respond,"
Isbell said.
This got me. Why would snakes want to get close to us? They don't
eat people.
And there are no dangerously venomous snakes on Madagascar, and lemurs,
which only live on that large island and which have poor eyesight, have
not evolved much in other ways in the past 60 million years, either,
Isbell added.
---
http://tinyurl.com/m59a7
.
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: Snake-spotting may have helped us evolve -study |
23 Jul 2006 01:01:16 AM |
|
|
In article <45111c4a.1064796750@news-west.newscene.com>,
(Kate ) wrote:
On Sat, 22 Jul 2006 01:23:46 -0700, johac <jhachmann@sbcglobal.com>
wrote:
You have to watch out for snakes, especially the talking kind.
---
Snake-spotting may have helped us evolve -study
Thu Jul 20, 5:03 PM ET
Snakes may make people jump for a good reason -- human close-up vision
may have evolved specifically to spot the reptiles, researchers reported
on Thursday.
Humans, monkeys and other primates have good color vision, large brains,
and use their vision to guide reaching and grasping.
But while some scientists believe these characteristics evolved together
as early primates used their hands and eyes to pick fruit and other
foods, Lynne Isbell, a professor of anthropology at the University of
California Davis, believes they may have evolved to help primates evade
snakes.
"A snake is the only predator you really need to see close up. If it's a
long way away it's not dangerous," said Isbell, who has published her
theory in the Journal of Human Evolution.
Neurological studies show the structure of the brain's visual system
seems to be well connected to brain structures involved in vigilance,
fear and learning, she said.
Mammals evolved about 100 million years ago and fossils of snakes with
mouths big enough to eat those mammals appear at about the same time,
she pointed out.
Other predators such as big cats, and hawks and eagles, evolved later.
And then venomous snakes evolved about 60 million years ago, which
forced primates to get better at detecting them.
"There's an evolutionary arms race between the predators and prey.
Primates get better at spotting and avoiding snakes, so the snakes get
better at concealment, or more venomous, and the primates respond,"
Isbell said.
This got me. Why would snakes want to get close to us? They don't
eat people.
I wonder about that too. Most encounters between humans and snakes in
the wild are accidental. Perhaps they meant that the snakes became
better at camouflage so they could better catch their normal prey,
rodents, birds, etc. To avoid those accidental encounters, it would
still be a survival advantage for primates or early humans to spot the
snake first.
And there are no dangerously venomous snakes on Madagascar, and lemurs,
which only live on that large island and which have poor eyesight, have
not evolved much in other ways in the past 60 million years, either,
Isbell added.
---
http://tinyurl.com/m59a7
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities"
-Voltaire
Contact - Throw a .net over the .com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Karl E. Taylor" |
|
| Title: Re: Snake-spotting may have helped us evolve -study |
24 Jul 2006 10:42:03 AM |
|
|
Kate <cobalt@newscene.com> wrote:
On Sat, 22 Jul 2006 01:23:46 -0700, johac <jhachmann@sbcglobal.com>
wrote:
You have to watch out for snakes, especially the talking kind.
---
Snake-spotting may have helped us evolve -study
Thu Jul 20, 5:03 PM ET
Snakes may make people jump for a good reason -- human close-up vision
may have evolved specifically to spot the reptiles, researchers reported
on Thursday.
Humans, monkeys and other primates have good color vision, large brains,
and use their vision to guide reaching and grasping.
But while some scientists believe these characteristics evolved together
as early primates used their hands and eyes to pick fruit and other
foods, Lynne Isbell, a professor of anthropology at the University of
California Davis, believes they may have evolved to help primates evade
snakes.
"A snake is the only predator you really need to see close up. If it's a
long way away it's not dangerous," said Isbell, who has published her
theory in the Journal of Human Evolution.
Neurological studies show the structure of the brain's visual system
seems to be well connected to brain structures involved in vigilance,
fear and learning, she said.
Mammals evolved about 100 million years ago and fossils of snakes with
mouths big enough to eat those mammals appear at about the same time,
she pointed out.
Other predators such as big cats, and hawks and eagles, evolved later.
And then venomous snakes evolved about 60 million years ago, which
forced primates to get better at detecting them.
"There's an evolutionary arms race between the predators and prey.
Primates get better at spotting and avoiding snakes, so the snakes get
better at concealment, or more venomous, and the primates respond,"
Isbell said.
This got me. Why would snakes want to get close to us? They don't
eat people.
Body heat. As I found out when my Python got out of his case once and I woke to find
him curled up next to me in bed.
Neeless to say, I fixed his hot rock the next day.
--
There are none more ignorant and useless,
than they that seek answers on their knees,
with their eyes closed.
____________________________________________________________________
Rev. Karl E. Taylor
A.A #1143 PLONKED by Bob
Apostle of Dr. Lao EAC: Virgin Conversion Unit Director
____________________________________________________________________
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gospel Bretts" |
|
| Title: Re: Snake-spotting may have helped us evolve -study |
22 Jul 2006 08:01:43 AM |
|
|
On 22 Jul 2006 07:43:02 -0500, (Kate ) wrote:
On Sat, 22 Jul 2006 01:23:46 -0700, johac <jhachmann@sbcglobal.com>
wrote:
You have to watch out for snakes, especially the talking kind.
---
Snake-spotting may have helped us evolve -study
Thu Jul 20, 5:03 PM ET
Snakes may make people jump for a good reason -- human close-up vision
may have evolved specifically to spot the reptiles, researchers reported
on Thursday.
Humans, monkeys and other primates have good color vision, large brains,
and use their vision to guide reaching and grasping.
But while some scientists believe these characteristics evolved together
as early primates used their hands and eyes to pick fruit and other
foods, Lynne Isbell, a professor of anthropology at the University of
California Davis, believes they may have evolved to help primates evade
snakes.
"A snake is the only predator you really need to see close up. If it's a
long way away it's not dangerous," said Isbell, who has published her
theory in the Journal of Human Evolution.
Neurological studies show the structure of the brain's visual system
seems to be well connected to brain structures involved in vigilance,
fear and learning, she said.
Mammals evolved about 100 million years ago and fossils of snakes with
mouths big enough to eat those mammals appear at about the same time,
she pointed out.
Other predators such as big cats, and hawks and eagles, evolved later.
And then venomous snakes evolved about 60 million years ago, which
forced primates to get better at detecting them.
"There's an evolutionary arms race between the predators and prey.
Primates get better at spotting and avoiding snakes, so the snakes get
better at concealment, or more venomous, and the primates respond,"
Isbell said.
This got me. Why would snakes want to get close to us? They don't
eat people.
I don't understand it either. I'm assuming that the characteristics
were retained from non-human primates who were small enough to be
snakes' prey?
__________________
Gospel Bretts
a.a. Atheist #2262
Fundy Xian Atheist
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Elroy Willis" |
|
| Title: Re: Snake-spotting may have helped us evolve -study |
22 Jul 2006 06:01:58 AM |
|
|
johac <jhachmann@sbcglobal.com> wrote in alt.atheism
You have to watch out for snakes, especially the talking kind.
---
Snake-spotting may have helped us evolve -study
Thu Jul 20, 5:03 PM ET
Snakes may make people jump for a good reason -- human close-up vision
may have evolved specifically to spot the reptiles, researchers reported
on Thursday.
[...]
"A snake is the only predator you really need to see close up. If it's a
long way away it's not dangerous," said Isbell, who has published her
theory in the Journal of Human Evolution.
Crocodiles and alligators aren't dangerous when they're far off
either, are they?
--
Elroy Willis
www.elroysemporium.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "J Forbes" |
|
| Title: Re: Snake-spotting may have helped us evolve -study |
22 Jul 2006 11:14:08 AM |
|
|
Elroy Willis wrote:
johac <jhachmann@sbcglobal.com> wrote in alt.atheism
"A snake is the only predator you really need to see close up. If it's a
long way away it's not dangerous," said Isbell, who has published her
theory in the Journal of Human Evolution.
Crocodiles and alligators aren't dangerous when they're far off
either, are they?
They're a lot easier to see than a snake....so snakes take special
spotting abilities.
And I sure jump when I see a snake, I jump before my consious mind
realizes that it's a snake!
Jim
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Painter" |
|
| Title: Re: Snake-spotting may have helped us evolve -study |
22 Jul 2006 12:40:16 PM |
|
|
J Forbes wrote:
Elroy Willis wrote:
johac <jhachmann@sbcglobal.com> wrote in alt.atheism
"A snake is the only predator you really need to see close up. If
it's a long way away it's not dangerous," said Isbell, who has
published her theory in the Journal of Human Evolution.
Crocodiles and alligators aren't dangerous when they're far off
either, are they?
They're a lot easier to see than a snake....so snakes take special
spotting abilities.
How are crocs and alligators easier to see when hunting?
And I sure jump when I see a snake, I jump before my consious mind
realizes that it's a snake!
I don't and even when I had an irrational fear of snakes didn't. In fact
when I see one in an urban setting my first thought is getting it to a safe
place before somebody kills it. When I was a cop I got sent on the "Big
snake in the garage" calls (Once it was a snake about four feet long). They
went home in my patrol car and into my back yard.
.
|
|
|
| User: "J Forbes" |
|
| Title: Re: Snake-spotting may have helped us evolve -study |
22 Jul 2006 10:47:46 PM |
|
|
Mike Painter wrote:
J Forbes wrote:
Elroy Willis wrote:
johac <jhachmann@sbcglobal.com> wrote in alt.atheism
"A snake is the only predator you really need to see close up. If
it's a long way away it's not dangerous," said Isbell, who has
published her theory in the Journal of Human Evolution.
Crocodiles and alligators aren't dangerous when they're far off
either, are they?
They're a lot easier to see than a snake....so snakes take special
spotting abilities.
How are crocs and alligators easier to see when hunting?
I don't even look for them, until I get to florida....and I've never
been to florida. Not much call for croc and alligator recognition in
my part of the desert. Snakes are much more common throughout the
world.
And I sure jump when I see a snake, I jump before my consious mind
realizes that it's a snake!
I don't and even when I had an irrational fear of snakes didn't. In fact
when I see one in an urban setting my first thought is getting it to a safe
place before somebody kills it. When I was a cop I got sent on the "Big
snake in the garage" calls (Once it was a snake about four feet long). They
went home in my patrol car and into my back yard.
I've had a few snakes in the garage, but they really get my sudden
attention when I"m walking down the road not paying enough attention
and see one a few feet in front of me.
Jim
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: Snake-spotting may have helped us evolve -study |
23 Jul 2006 01:02:42 AM |
|
|
In article <l214c2p9fcddc8fkkds3in73it9via3qdg@4ax.com>,
Elroy Willis <elroywillis@swbell.net> wrote:
johac <jhachmann@sbcglobal.com> wrote in alt.atheism
You have to watch out for snakes, especially the talking kind.
---
Snake-spotting may have helped us evolve -study
Thu Jul 20, 5:03 PM ET
Snakes may make people jump for a good reason -- human close-up vision
may have evolved specifically to spot the reptiles, researchers reported
on Thursday.
[...]
"A snake is the only predator you really need to see close up. If it's a
long way away it's not dangerous," said Isbell, who has published her
theory in the Journal of Human Evolution.
Crocodiles and alligators aren't dangerous when they're far off
either, are they?
True, but since they are bigger you might be able to spot them more
easily at a distance.
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities"
-Voltaire
Contact - Throw a .net over the .com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lucifer" |
|
| Title: Re: Snake-spotting may have helped us evolve -study |
23 Jul 2006 03:08:16 PM |
|
|
'tis improtant to see snakes, but not as a prey animal, more because
venomous snakes respond by biting if they feel threatened, and primates
avoid them to avoid scaring the snakes, interestingly, the response to
big cats is genetically programmed to the extent where people tend to
see false positives, as a flase positive is less serious than a false
negative if leopards may be present.
.
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: Snake-spotting may have helped us evolve -study |
24 Jul 2006 12:00:41 AM |
|
|
In article <1153685296.126999.9980@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"Lucifer" <wyrdology@hotmail.com> wrote:
'tis improtant to see snakes, but not as a prey animal, more because
venomous snakes respond by biting if they feel threatened, and primates
avoid them to avoid scaring the snakes, interestingly, the response to
big cats is genetically programmed to the extent where people tend to
see false positives, as a flase positive is less serious than a false
negative if leopards may be present.
True. Better vision though would have helped us spot many other
predators than snakes.
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities"
-Voltaire
Contact - Throw a .net over the .com
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Snake-spotting may have helped us evolve -study |
01 Aug 2006 05:53:01 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 16:15:30 GMT, in alt.atheism , Elroy Willis
<elroywillis@swbell.net> in
<ar9sc21mcurogpg8m3518vpj5r2176qcpt@4ax.com> wrote:
Matt Silberstein wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis <elroywillis@swbell.net> in
johac <jhachmann@sbcglobal.com> wrote in alt.atheism
You have to watch out for snakes, especially the talking kind.
Snake-spotting may have helped us evolve -study
Thu Jul 20, 5:03 PM ET
Snakes may make people jump for a good reason -- human close-up vision
may have evolved specifically to spot the reptiles, researchers reported
on Thursday.
"A snake is the only predator you really need to see close up. If it's a
long way away it's not dangerous," said Isbell, who has published her
theory in the Journal of Human Evolution.
Crocodiles and alligators aren't dangerous when they're far off
either, are they?
All crocodilians are dangerous to humans, you don't need to
distinguish them. Some snakes are dangerous, some are potential food.
So the ability to distinguish them from afar is of value.
I've watched a few shows about ape and other animal behaviour
when it comes to snakes since I made the above post, and think the
snake-spotting theory might have some merit to it, but also think part
of the fear of snakes comes from tribal teaching, even down to the
animals besides humans who are bitten by them.
In one of the shows, a young chimp didn't know how dangerous a
snake was, or didn't spot it, or if it did, didn't consider it
dangerous. Then several of the other chimps started screeching
out loud like crazy, and the youngster eventually ran up a tree to get
away from the snake. None of the other chimps actually came over to
try to kill the snake, however, so that was interesting...
In another show about a colony of meercats, the youngsters were
more curious about the snakes rather than afraid of them, but the
elder meercats start chattering when they saw a dangerous snake,
so I think that behaviour can be passed on without any particular
individual having to be bitten in order to be afraid of some type of
snake.
There is a name for this, a term that has escaped me. It is entirely
possible that genetic and cultural (a somewhat more neutral term that
tribal teaching, but means the same thing) changes can go hand and
hand. The more "we" developed the ability to detect snakes, the more
"we" could teach to recognize snakes.
I'm still skeptical of the claim that any certain animal is
genetically or instinctually afraid of snakes, or any other animal for
that matter, if they've never been bitten or had a bad experience with
it personally, or heard the cries of others in their tribe who've been
bitten and are thereafter afraid of them.
So am I. My reading on this is not up to date, but what I do remember
regarding instinctual fears (falling, etc.) was not quite convincing.
But evolution can play a role here. Suppose fear X is a "really good
idea". A group can learn and teach that fear, but those with a genetic
disposition would (perhaps) have an advantage in that learning. That
does not mean the fears are instinctual, just that it is possible that
culture can become genetic.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Elroy Willis" |
|
| Title: Re: Snake-spotting may have helped us evolve -study |
02 Aug 2006 07:11:33 AM |
|
|
Matt Silberstein wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis <elroywillis@swbell.net> in
I've watched a few shows about ape and other animal behaviour
when it comes to snakes since I made the above post, and think the
snake-spotting theory might have some merit to it, but also think part
of the fear of snakes comes from tribal teaching, even down to the
animals besides humans who are bitten by them.
In one of the shows, a young chimp didn't know how dangerous a
snake was, or didn't spot it, or if it did, didn't consider it
dangerous. Then several of the other chimps started screeching
out loud like crazy, and the youngster eventually ran up a tree to get
away from the snake. None of the other chimps actually came over to
try to kill the snake, however, so that was interesting...
In another show about a colony of meercats, the youngsters were
more curious about the snakes rather than afraid of them, but the
elder meercats start chattering when they saw a dangerous snake,
so I think that behaviour can be passed on without any particular
individual having to be bitten in order to be afraid of some type of
snake.
There is a name for this, a term that has escaped me. It is entirely
possible that genetic and cultural (a somewhat more neutral term that
tribal teaching, but means the same thing) changes can go hand and
hand. The more "we" developed the ability to detect snakes, the more
"we" could teach to recognize snakes.
Down to passing on catchy sayings like "red next to yellow will kill
a fellow, red next to black is a friend of jack" as a way to tell the
difference between a coral snake and some other snake that looks
like it. The show I watched speculated that chimps have a few
different sounds for different types of snakes, but they couldn't
prove it yet.
I'm still skeptical of the claim that any certain animal is
genetically or instinctually afraid of snakes, or any other animal for
that matter, if they've never been bitten or had a bad experience with
it personally, or heard the cries of others in their tribe who've been
bitten and are thereafter afraid of them.
So am I. My reading on this is not up to date, but what I do remember
regarding instinctual fears (falling, etc.) was not quite convincing.
But evolution can play a role here. Suppose fear X is a "really good
idea". A group can learn and teach that fear, but those with a genetic
disposition would (perhaps) have an advantage in that learning. That
does not mean the fears are instinctual, just that it is possible that
culture can become genetic.
I remember hearing about one tribe of native americans that seemed
to have no fear of heights and they made good workers for building
skyscrapers, but I never researched it very far. I think it was
proposed that it was a genetic trait, but couldn't be proven.
--
Elroy Willis
www.elroysemporium.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Snake-spotting may have helped us evolve -study |
07 Aug 2006 10:39:17 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 12:11:33 GMT, in alt.atheism , Elroy Willis
<elroywillis@swbell.net> in
<dl41d21sq164n73ffj4k82mke3imduc5g4@4ax.com> wrote:
Matt Silberstein wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis <elroywillis@swbell.net> in
I've watched a few shows about ape and other animal behaviour
when it comes to snakes since I made the above post, and think the
snake-spotting theory might have some merit to it, but also think part
of the fear of snakes comes from tribal teaching, even down to the
animals besides humans who are bitten by them.
In one of the shows, a young chimp didn't know how dangerous a
snake was, or didn't spot it, or if it did, didn't consider it
dangerous. Then several of the other chimps started screeching
out loud like crazy, and the youngster eventually ran up a tree to get
away from the snake. None of the other chimps actually came over to
try to kill the snake, however, so that was interesting...
In another show about a colony of meercats, the youngsters were
more curious about the snakes rather than afraid of them, but the
elder meercats start chattering when they saw a dangerous snake,
so I think that behaviour can be passed on without any particular
individual having to be bitten in order to be afraid of some type of
snake.
There is a name for this, a term that has escaped me.
It is called the Baldwin Affect. The idea is that genetics is
"cheaper" than education. So if trait learned "A" is of value then,
over time, it is more likely that genetic trait "a" will show up and
be selected for. (Not more like to show up, more like to be selected.)
It is entirely
possible that genetic and cultural (a somewhat more neutral term that
tribal teaching, but means the same thing) changes can go hand and
hand. The more "we" developed the ability to detect snakes, the more
"we" could teach to recognize snakes.
Down to passing on catchy sayings like "red next to yellow will kill
a fellow, red next to black is a friend of jack" as a way to tell the
difference between a coral snake and some other snake that looks
like it.
If the selection pressure is sufficient. But selection works on the
"good enough" principle. If jumping from all snakes works and there is
little advantage to not jumping for some snakes then all you need is
the simple startle.
The show I watched speculated that chimps have a few
different sounds for different types of snakes, but they couldn't
prove it yet.
It would not surprise me.
I'm still skeptical of the claim that any certain animal is
genetically or instinctually afraid of snakes, or any other animal for
that matter, if they've never been bitten or had a bad experience with
it personally, or heard the cries of others in their tribe who've been
bitten and are thereafter afraid of them.
So am I. My reading on this is not up to date, but what I do remember
regarding instinctual fears (falling, etc.) was not quite convincing.
But evolution can play a role here. Suppose fear X is a "really good
idea". A group can learn and teach that fear, but those with a genetic
disposition would (perhaps) have an advantage in that learning. That
does not mean the fears are instinctual, just that it is possible that
culture can become genetic.
I remember hearing about one tribe of native americans that seemed
to have no fear of heights and they made good workers for building
skyscrapers, but I never researched it very far. I think it was
proposed that it was a genetic trait, but couldn't be proven.
Turns out it was Mohawks (I thought Navaho, memory fools us). There is
no evidence they had any actual difference. I suspect that the idea
took hold in the construction community and that the Native Americans
took advantage of it. I am not terribly familiar with Iroquois so I
can't speak specifically, but in Lakota culture that would have been
considered a great joke.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Lucifer" |
|
| Title: Re: Snake-spotting may have helped us evolve -study |
01 Aug 2006 06:35:07 PM |
|
|
Matt Silberstein wrote:
On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 16:15:30 GMT, in alt.atheism , Elroy Willis
<elroywillis@swbell.net> in
<ar9sc21mcurogpg8m3518vpj5r2176qcpt@4ax.com> wrote:
Matt Silberstein wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis <elroywillis@swbell.net> in
johac <jhachmann@sbcglobal.com> wrote in alt.atheism
You have to watch out for snakes, especially the talking kind.
Snake-spotting may have helped us evolve -study
Thu Jul 20, 5:03 PM ET
Snakes may make people jump for a good reason -- human close-up vision
may have evolved specifically to spot the reptiles, researchers reported
on Thursday.
"A snake is the only predator you really need to see close up. If it's a
long way away it's not dangerous," said Isbell, who has published her
theory in the Journal of Human Evolution.
Crocodiles and alligators aren't dangerous when they're far off
either, are they?
All crocodilians are dangerous to humans, you don't need to
distinguish them. Some snakes are dangerous, some are potential food.
So the ability to distinguish them from afar is of value.
I've watched a few shows about ape and other animal behaviour
when it comes to snakes since I made the above post, and think the
snake-spotting theory might have some merit to it, but also think part
of the fear of snakes comes from tribal teaching, even down to the
animals besides humans who are bitten by them.
In one of the shows, a young chimp didn't know how dangerous a
snake was, or didn't spot it, or if it did, didn't consider it
dangerous. Then several of the other chimps started screeching
out loud like crazy, and the youngster eventually ran up a tree to get
away from the snake. None of the other chimps actually came over to
try to kill the snake, however, so that was interesting...
In another show about a colony of meercats, the youngsters were
more curious about the snakes rather than afraid of them, but the
elder meercats start chattering when they saw a dangerous snake,
so I think that behaviour can be passed on without any particular
individual having to be bitten in order to be afraid of some type of
snake.
There is a name for this, a term that has escaped me. It is entirely
possible that genetic and cultural (a somewhat more neutral term that
tribal teaching, but means the same thing) changes can go hand and
hand. The more "we" developed the ability to detect snakes, the more
"we" could teach to recognize snakes.
I'm still skeptical of the claim that any certain animal is
genetically or instinctually afraid of snakes, or any other animal for
that matter, if they've never been bitten or had a bad experience with
it personally, or heard the cries of others in their tribe who've been
bitten and are thereafter afraid of them.
So am I. My reading on this is not up to date, but what I do remember
regarding instinctual fears (falling, etc.) was not quite convincing.
But evolution can play a role here. Suppose fear X is a "really good
idea". A group can learn and teach that fear, but those with a genetic
disposition would (perhaps) have an advantage in that learning. That
does not mean the fears are instinctual, just that it is possible that
culture can become genetic.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
Cultural traits can be passed oin, through demonstration, teaching etc.
There is no reason why these cannot develop in the same way that
genetic traits do, with individuals changing their ways taking the
place of mutation, and positive and negative selection taking place.
Passed down learned habits can probably, to a certain extent, evolve.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Snake-spotting may have helped us evolve -study |
07 Aug 2006 10:32:15 AM |
|
|
On 1 Aug 2006 16:35:07 -0700, in alt.atheism , "Lucifer"
<wyrdology@hotmail.com> in
<1154475307.397549.105300@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> wrote:
[snip]
Cultural traits can be passed oin, through demonstration, teaching etc.
There is no reason why these cannot develop in the same way that
genetic traits do, with individuals changing their ways taking the
place of mutation, and positive and negative selection taking place.
Passed down learned habits can probably, to a certain extent, evolve.
True, but a different topic than we were discussing. I do happen to
think that culture evolves (and I think it is sufficiently close to
biological evolution that understanding in one area helps our
understanding in the other), but the topic here was the affect of
learning on biological evolution.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
