Replies

Yeah, well you LITERALLY did claim I said it.

Rather than adding insult to injury, you might want to refrain from calling me coy and snippy, as what I said to you was EXACTLY what you deserved.

Do you think anyone on this forum thinks snakes have little ears as opposed to big ones? Try reading comments in context to understand what they are about before jumping in and saying things that are untrue.

The context was that a claim was made that the mammoth's small ears (relative to elephants) can ONLY be explained by being adapted to a cold climate. There are a lot of arguments one could use as a counterpoint to my statement, but claiming I said snakes have ears demonstrates a willingness to fabricate things to win an argument and reveals a desire to evade the real issues in order to chase rabbits.

If I make a mistake I am one of the first around here to admit it, but I also don't let people get away with such fabrications.

If you or someone wants to have an intellectually honest debate, I am open. But if you think that taking cheap shots is the best way to win the debate, be prepared to be called on it.

So why do snakes not have large ears? For many reasons we can agree that it is NOT because they vanished through adaptation to cold climates. If not, why is this the ONLY possible explanation for mammoth's small ears? Personally, I could hardly care less whether mammoths lived in cold or mild climates. My reason for interjecting is that it is plain on the face of it that the detractors are quite disingenuous. Don't just sling mud up on the wall and see what sticks. Don't act so condescending toward anyone who doesn't see things your way, and act as if the only possible explanation is they are stupid.

Do you think anyone on this forum thinks snakes have little ears as opposed to big ones?

Yes. I certainly think, beyond any reasonable doubt, that until corrected, you thought snakes had very tiny ears as opposed to none.

What you originally posted:

Do all animals with tiny ears live in cold climates? Snakes don't have large ears.

...makes no sense in any other context. There's no remotely imaginable reason you would have posted that comment if you in fact knew that snakes had no external ears and no ear openings at all.

(Admittedly it makes little sense anyway, as that kind of comparison between members of such widely separated taxa is silly, and has nothing to do with the kind of comparison Vaquero had in mind, namely comparing the small ears of mammoths to the large ears of African elephants, or to the ears of Asian elephants for that matter (smaller than Africans but still far larger in relation to body size than those of mammoths).

You'd do yourself less damage by owning up to a minor boo-boo than engaging in Clintonesque word games: "I didn't actually 'say' what I unmistakably implied!"

So why do snakes not have large ears? For many reasons we can agree that it is NOT because they vanished through adaptation to cold climates.

Reptiles never had ears in the first place. There was no opportunity for something to "vanish" that never existed to begin with. So, as if this was your original point ("I'll make a point of commenting that something that doesn't have ears doesn't have large ears") it's equally uninformed. But then you'll now admit that since you're "one of the first around here to admit [a mistake]". (As if.)

Personally, I could hardly care less whether mammoths lived in cold or mild climates.

Then your behavior makes little sense. The webpage you made a point of linking, posting and defending didn't argue that mammoths lived in "mild" climates. Few in fact would argue that the climates they inhabited probably varied (seasonally and/or through migration) between cold and somewhat "mild". Your author argued that mammoths lived in a TROPICAL environment, and were SUDDENLY FROZEN by a global catastrophe of Velikovskian, planets in near collision, proportions.

Defending such a WILD, nutball theory is hardly consistent with someone who "could hardly care less" if it was true or credible.

a claim was made that the mammoth's small ears (relative to elephants) can ONLY be explained by being adapted to a cold climate

Now you're doing exactly what you (however ludicrously) accused me of doing. Vaquero never said cold adaptation was the "only" reason for small mammoth ears. What he said was that your author's tropical mammoths theory failed to account for this fact about mammoths.

Shedding heat isn't the "only" explanation for the large ears of African elephants either. They also use their large ears for signaling to other elephants. They also use their large ears, and the ability to extend them, to present a larger and more intimidating frontal appearance when threatened or challenged. But the fact that their ears, packed with thousands of blood vessels, are important as radiators to cool their blood and thereby lower their body temperature, is also evident.

The problem is -- given that shedding heat is an extremely pressing problem for a large animal like an elephant, and would be even more pressing for mammoths with their thick, woolly hair, their even larger (for most species) body size, and their smaller (even when adjusted for size) surface area to volume ratio -- why would their design forego the opportunity to shed heat with large ears, if they were indeed "tropical" animals. (AND why would they have a shape the provided a smaller surface area, and why would they have all that woolly hair, etc.)

But in the end it's just one fact among a whole devastating array which renders the "tropical mammoth" theory you posted silly and untenable.