Do you believe that the fear of snakes drove primate evolution?

Question

There is a new theory out suggesting that the fear of snakes triggered the development of improved vision and larger brains in primates. The theory suggests that snakes and primates share a long history.
Primates vision evolved to be able to detect and avoid snakes before they could strike them. They 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.

We descended from those primates in this theory.

Do you believe that snakes helped drive primate evolution?

They do speak of other species, including larger mammals that we had to worry about but they say snakes had primarily helped influence our close range sight because it was so hard to detect them.

You can find an article about it on news.yahoo.com

Answer 1

I believe that primate or any evolution is the product of many things, not one primary reason. Environmental pressures of any kind, including but not limited to: predators, habitat, conditions (ie. weather, temperature, soil) could all be contributing factors. So to answer the question directly, I believe that it is certainly possible that snakes could have influenced primate evolution, but are not solely responsible for where evolution has taken the species since then.

Answer 2

This is the most ridiculous hypothesis I have read in months, and I see some realy dumb ones at work.

The simple fact is that primates by and large too mobile to be common prey for snakes, except when they are asleep. And yet our eyes and our habits tell us that primates evolved over the course of eons to be specialised DIURNAL operatives ie weare active only in daylight. Our vision refelects that and we lack the reflective membrane found in the eyes of most other mammals. As a result almost all primates are effectively blind at night, even the nocturnal species. Certainly no primates exhibit any ability distinguish colours under low light conditions.

So at the only time primates would have been common prey for snakes, while they were sleeping at night, they have eyes that are severely impaired. Ayt night primate eyes have no ability whateovere to discern colour, extremely limited ability to detect movement and very little range.

No, sorry, this hypothesis doesn't stand up to even a moment's analysis.

Primates have eyes that can see in colour because we, like birds, are foragers of the forest canopy and we rely on colour to see ripe fruit and insect prey in the bright sunlight up there. Under the low light conditions of the forest floor or at night we have limited colour vision.

We have an eye for detail and movement because we are, almost without exception, insectivorous and of course becase we need to see predators like cats.

We have binocular vision because we are arboreal animals and need to be able to judge distance in order to climb and leap between branches as well as catching prey.

The idea that snakes played any significant role in this makes no sense and offedns against Ockham's razor.

Answer 3

I have read about this, too. I thought it far-fetched at first. But the more I read the more plausible it seemed. I have heard that the fear of falling may also have had a part in human development. Primates have been observed having extreme reactions to the presence of snakes.

Answer 4

Although the news reports state it's a theory, it isn't. It's a hypothesis, which is something very different. If you ask the scientist (Lynne A. Isbell) who developed the hypothesis if she "believes" it, I doubt she'd say yes. She'd probably say that it's a hypothesis and has not been fully verified yet and therefore hasn't been advanced to the level of a full theory. And even if that happens, it will be open to further testing until it is perhaps proven wrong. It's not about believing and not believing; it's about testing and verifying.

Answer 5

a million.Evolution did no longer create The Universe/Earth. no person believes that. 2.Planets and sunlight are not in the situation the place life can variety, it is any opposite direction around. 3. "So how became into we born from infants?" ...Wait, what? 4. human beings weren't first organisms in the worldwide. (evolution comes right here) 5. First animals (what we call animals) got here out as infants, you have been precise there. 6. study stuff, you haven't any longer have been given any thought what you're speaking approximately. no considered one of their precise suggestions might declare what you have written right here. you don't understand the huge bang concept, abiogenesis or evolution. even nonetheless, I do understand your god, and that i reject claims approximately his life in accordance with reason and shortage of evidence.

Answer 6

Why yes, that would make perfect sense! That is why Eve ate the fruit that the serpent enticed her into eating. It was her vision!

Answer 7

Sounds silly to me. Everything drives evolution.

Answer 8

No I think that's a bit far fetched.

Answer 9

Hahahaha that's a funny one.