[The other fundies have been reacting to the news that a fossil of a four-legged snake ancestor has been found.]
Humans supposedly evolved into an upright walking position because we had to have our eyes above tall grasses on plains. Lately, it seems that we evolved up in the trees, then ventured into the water but, unlike dolphins, porpoises, and whales, thought better of it and went back to the land.
One of these days, they'll get it right.
29 comments
Uh, no. That is not what has been proposed. If you are talking about the WHHE (Waterside Hypothesis of Human Evolution), it has been discredited. For fun, go to Talk Rational and look at the whole series of threads on the topic.
We did evole upright posture to see of the savanna grasses, after we came down from the trees. Living near a constant water source provided extra food opportunities for our ancestors. Most modern humans try to live near a water source to this day.
One of these days, yes, as they are still trying to find the answer.
You, on the other hand is content with "I don't know so therefore God". We'd still be stuck in the Medieval Times if everyone was like you.
Luckily most people are not, so we now have computers and Internet and indoor heating and electricity and clean water and other ungodly stuff.
@ Wyzard and Goomy pls:
A bunch of hidebound anthropologists jumped all over the aquatic theory in the 70's when it was first proposed. Their counterpoint isn't without weight, however "discredited" is not a word to be used lightly.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwPoM7lGYHw
PS: Why does a gorilla have big nostrils?
Because it has big fingers.
PPS:
Prof Higgins: "And where is this grassy plain?"
Eliza: "In Spain! In Spain! The rain in Spain stays mainly on the plain." (Also wrong.)
Watch the YouTube video, especially the part about the surrounding vegetation where/when the first bipedal ancestors were found. Science requires one to keep up!
@documentingtehcrazy,
No, they're referring to the aquatic ape hypothesis, which as the other posters have pointed out, has been long discredited. Creationists are known for taking controversies in science and using it to say "see, scientists don't know anything!", because nobody has any doubts as to what the Bible means.
One of these days, they'll get it right.
One of these days, you might get something right yourself. I rather doubt it though.
Snakes with legs
Legless lizards
and water creatures of many subsets repeating the traits.
But evolution doesn't work because jimbob dumbfuck thinks he knows it SHOULD always end in the ultimate of all evolving, in legs. Something the simplest of insects and sea creatures have. In fact animals that we eat gots four of them.
"Humans supposedly evolved into an upright walking position because we had to have our eyes above tall grasses on plains."
No, we spent countless generations ABLE to stand on our back limbs upright (like Bears)until it became a regular practice to do this and develop our front limbs more to developing dexterity and manipulation (like Racoons) until, in humans, ands others, we always moved on our hind quarters.
We still climb with all four, transporting vertically early on still demanding a hand assist until we invented stairs,but,, wait,,hand rails! We must be devolving!
between all the legless lizards and vestigial-hipbone-carrying snakes currently still extant, i hadn't thought the discovery of a legged snake ancestor would be considered surprising by much anybody.
then again, these are fundies. i do keep underestimating the daftness of fundies.
Evolution doesn't involve a thought process. The first humanoids that developed bipedal walking didn't do so for the fun of it, but those that adapted to a more upright stance stood a greater chance of survival on the grassy plains, by watching out for prey and predators, than those that struggled. Those that were bipedal stood a better chance of passing their genes on to the next generation, and through time their success enabled them to thrive.
"One of these days, they'll get it right." "
Science will never come to the consensus that the literal Biblical account is plausible, and the fact that science changes to correct itself in accordance with new research gives greater trust than the unerring beliefs of long outdated scripture. I trust the honest person that admits to mistakes, whilst proving themselves highly competent, than the arrogant fool that will never back down, even when their beliefs have been shown to be ridiculous.
A rational person works to correct a mistake once s/he realizes it. If you're driving and discover you made a wrong turn 5 miles back, do you just keep driving and hope everything turns out right? If you realize you made a mistake in a recipe, what do you do?
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.