the oldest snake

[JimmyDavid]

I thought it could be interesting to post a pic of the oldest kind of snake found. It's an ancient python species. It looks a lot like those around today.
Scientists still can't explain why, If they really evolved from lizards that lost limbs, are there no fossils of creatures representing in-between evolution. It's like one day, pythons just came out of nowhere.
"...and the earth gave birth to the python..." ;)

[Lrptls]

wow thats awesome! that is weird, you would think there would be some sort of creature with an inbetween legs and no legs...perhaps they were wrong and snakes didn't evolve from lizards! who knows, thanks for posting that, very cool.

[RB420]

i read that "The fossil history of snakes is very poorly known, since snake skeletons are very delicate and do not fossilize easily."

[timfriesen32]

or maybe they didn't evolve........

[clint545]

Aren't we still looking for our missing link too? Something to think about indeed!:)

[RB420]

to me it makes more sense that they evolved from water dwelling to land dwelling. not from land dwelling or burrowing lizards which is one theory. i read an interesting site about the evolution of the snakes. if i can find the link i will post it.

[JimmyDavid]

It makes some sense.
Snakes have more in common with fish than with lizards.
Those eyes without lids, several rows of teeth, think about it...snakes are just enlongated fish.
And maybe scientists got it all wrong. maybe what they think to be remains of legs could be remains of fins.

[mmichele]

they did not evolve people how think they did are crazy

[dr greenlove]

Originally posted by mmichele
they did not evolve people how think they did are crazy


I am not sure i understand the above post.

The problem with the fossil record is that it is massively incomplete. I forget the exact figures, but i seem to remember reading somewhere that it represents just a tiny minority of all the life that has existed (for some reason i am thinking 10%...but i could well be wrong, so don't quote me:) ).

Regardless of the exact numbers, there has been FAR more life that has existed than we will ever know about.

As to how snakes evolved, we may never know. But looking around in nature at this point in time aren't there various species of Skinks that are in various stages of loosing their legs? I can also think of two lizards that already have "lost" their legs, obviously this doesn't make them snakes, but it does illustrate at least that is is not impossible for snakes to have decended from lizards.

[JimmyDavid]

Skinks exist today. In order to complete the evolution table of the snake you would have to place a creature like that BEFORE snakes. And there's none. All known lizards from back then had strong legs.

[lostwithin]

"Snakes have more in common with fish than with lizards."


Jimmydavid , that is one of the most ridiculous statements I have ever seen. snakes have very little in common with fish, I don’t even see the similar outward appearance, but even if there was it means absolutely nothing. I have seen you start several posts about the whole evolution topic. And in every case you were making ridicules and uneducated assumptions. Buy a book and learn something about the topic.

And thanks for the pic, where did it come from ? I would like to see a bigger version of it, plus some of the original information that came along with it.

Devon

[galad]

Thankyou lostwithin. I's sorry but you guys are arguing against science.
And maybe scientists got it all wrong???
Thats a pretty powerfull statement.
The example of the skinks lossing legs meant that they could be following the same type of mutations that snakes went through durring evolution. Not that snakes came from skinks.
Also Dr. greenlove I couldn't agree more. If 10% of the prehistoric animals got fossilized we would be lucky. There are animals in our world at this very moment that have yet to be discovered. From bigfoot (lol) to spiders and butterflies.

How do you know that there are no species before the snakes?

Don't think to hard. Wouldn't want to hurt yourself lol, j/k.

peace

ws

[JimmyDavid]

???

[SnakeyeZ]

I beleive Jimmy has a point that 'snakes' have more in-common with 'fish', than 'snakes' to 'lizards'.

But I honestly dont think snakes evolved from either of them.

[lostwithin]

I am sure there are many things that scientists have wrong, or have yet to figure out. But they have ways of actually proving and disproving theories, not just making things up to suit your own needs.

I am sure there are minor similarities in the appearance of some fish and some snakes, but the relationship between the two stops there. Biologically speaking they are completely different organisms, I don’t even know where to begin when listing the differences.

Just as an example outside the reptile world, look at Flying squirrels and sugar gliders, to the naked eye they are almost identical in appearance and behavior. But if you were to simply dissect them, or run a genetic test you would find out very quickly that there are some VERY big differences between them. That’s the wonderful think about evolution and diversity, animals regardless of genetic background and evolutionary history can end up looking the same simply because those are the traits that best suit there chosen environment (which could even be on opposite sides of the world.

And at the same time 2 very closely related species can look very different simply because of the habitats that they need to inhabit to survive.

[lostwithin]

I beleive Jimmy has a point that 'snakes' have more in-common with 'fish', than 'snakes' to 'lizards'.

What exactly do snakes and fish have in common ??

I think everyone should keep in mind that the theory isn’t that snakes evolved from lizards, Snakes evolved or I should say for arguments sake, at the present time and all information and testing done to date points to the fact that snakes and lizards evolved form a common ancestor. Not that one evolved from the other.

[JimmyDavid]

Lizards are supposed to be much older than snakes, lostwithin. You make it sound like they both started their evolution paths in paralel.
And fish are even older, so either you want it or not, both snakes and lizards share that common background.

[lostwithin]

Lizards are supposed to be much older than snakes, lostwithin. You make it sound like they both started their evolution paths in parallel.

Lizards as we know them are no "older" then snakes, you said it yourself they both come from common ancestors, Neither is any older then the other, One may bare more of a resemblance to the ancestral species. And of course you can trace all animals back far enough to find common ancestors, but that wasn’t the point here. The point was that lizard’s do share more in common snakes then fish would, because they are "closer" to each other biologically speaking.

Earlier in the post you were implying snakes didn’t evolve from lizards and now your arguing they did.
Those eyes without lids, several rows of teeth, think about it...snakes are just enlongated fish.

You cannot expect me to take an argument seriously if you can’t pick a side, you seem to just argue for the sake of arguing. Most likely because yet again you are arguing something you don’t understand.

Now I really don’t want to get into another debate with you about evolution. You had me almost pulling my hair out with your shear ignorance of the facts last time. So please don’t start that same argument again again.

Devon

EDIT : also feel free to use my name rather then lostwithin, if you would like.

[timfriesen32]

.....or maybe they didn't evolve at all.......

[lostwithin]

Yes, there is that possibility as well, there will always be people who cling to the belief that everything just appeared out of thin air fully developed despite the obvious facts and research that proves otherwise. But to each his own.

Devon

[timfriesen32]

What about the creation theory? That doesn't involve everything "appearing out of thin air". That involves everything being created by a higher power.

But, as long as everything, creation theory, and evloution theory, still have the word theory following them, thats all they are....is theories, and not facts. Each have their strengths and weaknesses, but neither can be proved.

TIm

[lostwithin]

I don’t want to get into the "creation theory" on an online forum, it's too much of a touchy subject, and it's too easy to misinterpret comments, and I would hate to offend someone. I will say that there are several different types of theories some that have been tested and stand up to the facts and others that have not.

Devon

[RB420]

ok so im not scientist, im just throwing ideas out in the air here...BUT..... maybe snakes just originated as an aquatic species, and the adapted to being on land later on down the evolution chain. several thing evolved independantly, in water, then later on some became land dwelling....doesn't mean they are all related to fish exactly...so maybe FISh isn't the right term to be using......but i dunno, i hope you get my point....seeing as how i have absolutely no education on the subject i find it difficult to express my thoughts in the approprait terms sometimes.

[lostwithin]

One of the commonly accepted theories is that "snakes" evolved from an aquatic reptile that latter moved back onto land. Many animals show this trend of adapting back and forth from land to water, through out evolutionary history.

Devon

[RB420]

either way the are pretty damn fascinating animals :)

[JimmyDavid]

Everyone has the right to say "heck, i don't know that much about it, but to me it kind of makes sense THIS way..."

My goal with this post was just to share that pic, wich i thought was interesting. then someone presented a little thought of it's own about evolution (wich is quite fine), i threw my own thought there as well (is it less fine?) and then, OF COURSE, someone had to come along and turn this thread about a contest to see who is more educated on the subject of evolution.
Relax, you see, sometimes it's just about the fun of talking, not saying "I know it better than you do".

[K1LOS]

Do boa's not still have traces of hip-bones? I know you can see the spurs, which like JimmyDavid said, could be reminance of fins, but i thought there was some form of hip-bone left as well. Maybe not...

And who ever that was that was talking about the creation theory, please do start a thread about it. As of now, i see absolutely no reason to believe in that theory, where as i see plenty of evidence to back up the evolution.

To me, one is religion and one is science. But go ahead, start a thread, and see if you can convince me! I'd like to hear your side of things.

Geoff

[timfriesen32]

You are correct. One is science, and one is religion. If I'm correct in my understanding of the rules of this forum, religion and politics are not allowed to be discussed.

It would be an interesting thread, but I won't be the one to start it.

The reason that the evolution theory hasn't got me convinced is the many holes and gaps that they haven't been able to 100 % prove actually existed.

Like I mentioned before. As long as the word theory is attached to the title (and I think evolution is still refered to as a theory, as well as creation) thats all it is is a theory....not proof, or fact, just theory.

If you'd like to discuss the creation theory, pm if you'd like. I'll give you my opinion, but thats all it is, is my opinion.

TIm

[RB420]

Must......bite.......tongue.......

[galad]

lol monty couldnt agree more.

[JimmyDavid]

http://www.harunyahya.com/refuted5.php

Because some of you asked to see the full content (where the pic came from), here's the link.

[lostwithin]

Thanks, I would also like to point out the same article can be found here (I did a search on your photo before you provided the site to read it), any way I read over this website, it does have references to several good pieces of information. I would suggest everyone that reads it takes the time to either pick up a book, or even do a google search on any of the information on that site, you will find a lot of the information they use has more to it , that they neglected to add to there site.

I especially like the information they have on the Cambrian explosion, they tend to leave out the fact that most information of that period comes from one amazing deposit, fossil evidence from earlier periods has been found to support the theory, it doesn’t all start there like they imply. Also when they mention that all forms found there remain the same today, I find it quite deceiving when scientists talk about these forms they are talking of forms such as bilateral or radial symmetry, not the animals skeletal structure, and species that are abundant today. They tend to word it as if those animals that we saw then looked exactly like those we see today.

Either was it is worth reading, I just see someone read one thing without looking up the information being used in it’s original context.


Edit, got caught up in thought and forgot to post the link, sorry, here it is.,
http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/natural_history_1_05.html

Devon