[Stultis]

I did not say they do. If we follow the logic (or illogic rather) of Vaquero, then the only explanation for this is that snakes MUST live in cold climates because this feature CAN ONLY occur in order to help conserve heat.

Only if we assumed Vaquero was stupid. As stupid as, say, folks who think mammoths were flash-frozen by some Velikovskiesque catastrophe.

Otherwise we would assume that only comparisons wrt closely related taxa (e.g. NOT SNAKES) would be relevant. E.g. comparing the ears of mammoths to other elephantine mammals would be relevant, with respect to ears and other cold/heat adaptations.

[unlearner]

"comparing the ears of mammoths to other elephantine mammals would be relevant, with respect to ears and other cold/heat adaptations."

Do elephant ear size vary in direct proportion to their native climates?

Pick any animal you wish. The claim I am arguing against is a completely unscientific approach. Science does not deal in dogmas, it deals in likelihood. One might argue that small ears contribute to the likelihood of a colder native climate, but that is not the same as saying that it is PROOF of one view and other views are thereby disproved.

That this is your camp's attempt to falsify the hypothesis under debate is a poor example of scholarship, and a good example of dogma-driven desperation.