Primitive snakes

[CDN-Cresties]

I have skimmed through this thread and I would just like to say that RMBolton has been correct in what he has said. Sorry JimmyDavid but you are the one who is "short on information" on this thread.

[tdherper]

JimmyDavid you are clearly lacking the knowledge or understanding of those you chose to challenge on the subject. Trying to call people out for YOUR failure to accept the facts clearly shows as I stated before that your views are not "evolving" with the information being afforded to you.

I have found this thread very informative and educational and it's your attitude that is poisoning the thread. If you cannot be persuaded by the facts presented to you, I'm affraid your understanding of the subject is "fated" to be.....

[spidergecko]

In JimmyDavid's defence, he does have a belief that the universe is fated. This means probability does not exist and everything that happens was meant to happen. Things don't change based on their environment, they change because the fates say they will. Following this logic, everything he writes make complete sense. I can't say I agree or that the majority of people agree, but following his logic, it does make sense.

[Lioness]

i dont know much about this kinda stuff yet...but man, jimmy, u start the best topics

[lostwithin]

JimmyDavid, I just read over this entire post, and what I got out of it is you began a topic with a ligament question. Which I belive has been answered but incase it hasn't.

You are looking at it a bit incorrectly, the reason Boids are considered primitive is because they bare the closest resemblance to the ancestral snakes. they have been evolving just as long as colubrid species they just have not gone through as much change. Its not like coloubrids started evolving moved through the "boid phase" and into a more advanced species before boids began evolving. they simply branched off for whatever reason and evolved at a different rate/ different direction. then boids did.

If it helps try to look at it in human/chimp turns. both are now considered to have evolved from a common ancestor. Chimps bare a closer resemblance to that ancestor, but they have been evolving for the same amount of time. they just have done so in a different way. Technically neither is any older then the other. But chimps would be considered primitive because of there closer resemblance to that ancestor.

In the end I would suggest doing much more research into evolution You seem to have a few key points to learn before you should argue anything. theirs nothing wrong with being wrong and being corrected but to argue an incorrect point just makes you look foolish.


Devon

[Jeff_Favelle]

JimmyDavid, you're giving me a headache man. If I didn't have a head that was about to explode because of your "genetics" breakdowns, I could refer you to a couple of books that could explain it to you.

1) The smallest unit of life that can evolve is a POPULATION!!! The individual cannot evolve and events that happen to it (ie making your legs smaller) is NOT HEREDITARY. It does NOT change your genotype.

2) Boas are the most primitive of SNAKES. No one said they were a pimitive animal. But if you had two lines of snakes that had legs eons ago, and one line had evolved to get rid of them COMPLETELY and another line still had working remnants of legs, which line is the MORE primitive??? Obvious, no? They call boids primitive in RELATION to other snakes, not to other animal groups.

3) Evolution takes a LONG time (there are exceptions) and happens as the result of selective pressures (ie THE HABITAT CHANGES!) affecting who is successful and who is not ( so that they can pass on their genes).

I do hope you pick up a book on this, because you are close, but you are confused on a lot of the basics.

Cheers guys. Good discussion.

[JimmyDavid]

Seems that the part where most disagree with me is about genetic flexibility, where i said it's possible for a creature to pass some transformed genetic data to it's next generation.
While i understand this is a herp site, not a Biology convention, i was expecting you all to know that such is more than known to happen. And more,
evolution does not depend on selective breeding, like someone pointed out here.
Perhaps the best example is the virus.
The virus is a sexless creature (there are no males or females) and their next generation takes only one doner, so you could say they are supposed to be an exact copy of the "parent". But yet they change. Everytime a virus endures a challenge (drugs, for example) they become stronger and they change at genetic level, that's why our body can't recognize it anymore and vaccines stop working.
The next "bloodline" carries the alterations performed by their "fathers" and that's why we have a new flu-type almost every winter. This would never be possible if the genetic content passed on didn't include the modifications made.

[tdherper]

:zi:

[lostwithin]

Nice point JimmyDavid, but there is a reason the a virus falls under a separate category all together. they are not part of the "super kingdom" of Eukariota, which contains animals, plants, fungi , and protozoa.

Your comparison would be like be saying since you can vaporize a container of mercury but it is still mercury just in another form. that is a proven fact, so obviously I could vaporize my Ball python and it would still be a ball python just in a gaseous form.

Now how ridiculous does that sound ? again I will suggest that you do more research before arguing a point and making yourself look foolish.


Devon

[JimmyDavid]

Mercury is a physical element, a Virus is a living cell with a dna chain as complex as any other creature's. I don't see any connection.

[lostwithin]

No as a matter of fact a virus is a particle, more specifically a nucleic acid with a protein shell.

Now again I will suggest you take the time to do some research before you argue an incorrect point then back it up with incorrect information.

Devon

[Removed_2815]

Originally posted by JimmyDavid
a Virus is a living cell with a dna chain as complex as any other creature's.

You're joking, right?

[JimmyDavid]

Let's see: In school i was told that a virus lives, reproduces and dies. That makes it a living creature (the fact alone that it reproduces means it has a dna chain) but now i'm learning it's all wrong. Why did i listen to my teachers? should have known better...

[JimmyDavid]

Originally posted by lostwithin
No as a matter of fact a virus is a particle, more specifically a nucleic acid with a protein shell.

I said a virus is a living cell, you say it's not and then you DESCRIBE one. Go figure it...

Ok, drop the virus example. There are deep-sea creatures that follow the same reproduction system. No male or females. Is it possible that these creatures never evolved and never will? please...

[lostwithin]

the fact that it reproduces or multiplies, does not mean it has a DNA chain. In fact wether viruses are even considered alive or not is still debated. Maybe your teachers were wrong maybe you just weren't listening. Either way all the information can easily be found in any high school text, or all over the Internet. you just have to take the time to read rather then make things up.

Devon