Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Scientists Discover Where Snakes Lived When They Evolved into Limbless Creatures
Penn State ^ | 30 January 2004 | press release

Posted on 02/03/2004 2:37:14 PM PST by AdmSmith

The mystery of where Earth's first snakes lived as they were evolving into limbless creatures from their lizard ancestors has intrigued scientists for centuries. Now, the first study ever to analyze genes from all the living families of lizards has revealed that snakes made their debut on the land, not in the ocean. The discovery resolves a long-smoldering debate among biologists about whether snakes had a terrestrial or a marine origin roughly 150 million years ago--a debate rekindled recently by controversial research in favor of the marine hypothesis.

In a paper to be published in the 7 May 2004 issue of the Royal Society journal Biology Letters, Nicolas Vidal, a postdoctoral fellow, and S. Blair Hedges, a professor of biology at Penn State, describe how they put the two theories to the test. They collected the largest genetic data set for snakes and lizards ever used to address this question. Their collection includes two genes from 64 species representing all 19 families of living lizards and 17 of the 25 families of living snakes.

Genetic material from some of the lizards was difficult to obtain because some species live only on certain small islands or in remote parts of the world. "We felt it was important to analyze genes from all the lizard groups because almost every lizard family has been suggested as being the one most closely related to snakes. If we had failed to include genes from even one of the lizard families, we could have missed getting the right answer," Hedges explains.

"For the marine hypothesis to be correct, snakes must be the closest relative of the only lizards known to have lived in the ocean when snakes evolved--the giant, extinct mosasaur lizards," Vidal says. "While we can't analyze the genes of the extinct mosasaurs, we can use the genes of their closest living cousins, monitor lizards like the giant Komodo Dragon," he explains.

The team analyzed gene sequences from each of the species, using several statistical methods to determine how the species are related. "Although these genes have the same function in each species--and so, by definition, are the same gene--their structure in each species is slightly different because of mutations that have developed over time," Vidal explains. When the genetic comparisons were complete, Vidal and Hedges had a family tree showing the relationships of the species.

"Our results show clearly that snakes are not closely related to monitor lizards like the giant Komodo Dragon, which are the closest living relatives of the mosasaurs--the only known marine lizard living at the time that snakes evolved," Vidal says. "Because all the other lizards at that time lived on the land, our study provides strong evidence that snakes evolved on the land, not in the ocean."

The research suggests an answer to another long-debated question: why snakes lost their limbs. Their land-based lifestyle, including burrowing underground at least some of the time, may be the reason. "Having limbs is a real problem if you need to fit through small openings underground, as anybody who has tried exploring in caves knows," Hedges says. "Your body could fit through much smaller openings if you did not have the wide shoulders and pelvis that support your limbs." The researchers note that the burrowing lifestyle of many other species, including legless lizards, is correlated with the complete loss of limbs or the evolution of very small limbs.

This research was supported by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Astrobiology Institute and the National Science Foundation.

(Excerpt) Read more at science.psu.edu ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Extended News
KEYWORDS: crevolist; evolution; science
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 321-333 next last
A preprint of the research paper by Vidal and Hedges is posted on at http://www.journals.royalsoc.ac.uk/link.asp?id=pa6a316clj7h
1 posted on 02/03/2004 2:37:18 PM PST by AdmSmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
A snake for your collection.
2 posted on 02/03/2004 2:38:17 PM PST by AdmSmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AdmSmith
There was also an attorney somewhere in the evolutionary gene pool...
3 posted on 02/03/2004 2:39:57 PM PST by ErnBatavia (Some days you're the windshield; some days you're the bug)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Modernman
Ping for you and your Creation "science" adversaries.
4 posted on 02/03/2004 2:39:58 PM PST by BroncosFan (Howard Dean, M.D. -- coming soon to a state near you!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: shaggy eel; RightWhale
ping
5 posted on 02/03/2004 2:42:11 PM PST by Willie Green (Go Pat Go!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AdmSmith
14 And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:
6 posted on 02/03/2004 2:43:25 PM PST by VRWC_minion (Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and most are right)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AdmSmith
Good grief this is common sense stuff.
Shoot, the Bible says right in Genesis that God cursed the serpent and said it would from that day forth crawl on its belly.
7 posted on 02/03/2004 2:43:48 PM PST by Chewbacca (I want to be Emperor of Mars.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AdmSmith
Scientists Discover Where Snakes Lived When They Evolved into Limbless Creatures

Democratic Underground?
8 posted on 02/03/2004 2:44:56 PM PST by anonymous_user (Politics is show business for ugly people.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AdmSmith
And I thought snakes came from Hope, Arkansas.
9 posted on 02/03/2004 2:47:46 PM PST by colorado tanker ("There are but two parties now, Traitors and Patriots")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AdmSmith
"Having limbs is a real problem if you need to fit through small openings underground, as anybody who has tried exploring in caves knows," Hedges says. "Your body could fit through much smaller openings if you did not have the wide shoulders and pelvis that support your limbs."


10 posted on 02/03/2004 2:48:44 PM PST by Fifth Business
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Willie Green

11 posted on 02/03/2004 2:49:08 PM PST by shaggy eel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: AdmSmith
Their land-based lifestyle, including burrowing underground at least some of the time, may be the reason. "Having limbs is a real problem if you need to fit through small openings underground

Land-based lifestyle? Are limbs somewhat rare among land-based creatures? And the burrowing part? I guess that explains why moles and prairie dogs have no limbs.

As usual, close to 100% guesswork, culminating in a conclusion. The "science" of evolution.

12 posted on 02/03/2004 2:50:22 PM PST by ClearCase_guy (I'm having an apotheosis of freaking desuetude)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: shaggy eel
Yankee senators aren't the only ones who are left wanting in the looks department
13 posted on 02/03/2004 2:51:01 PM PST by cyborg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: cyborg
,,, oh, where did you dredge that up? Isn't it repulsive?!!!
14 posted on 02/03/2004 2:52:39 PM PST by shaggy eel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: cyborg
That woman was beat with a wet squirrel.
15 posted on 02/03/2004 2:54:18 PM PST by Tijeras_Slim (Come see the violence inherent in the system!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: VRWC_minion
14 And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:

Thank you for this truth.

I have never held a snake in my life and don't plan to, but I'm told every snake has two spots on its underbelly where there once were legs.

Evolutionists can theorize all they want, but many of us know the truth as stated in the Bible.

16 posted on 02/03/2004 2:55:15 PM PST by Southflanknorthpawsis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Southflanknorthpawsis
Evolutionists can theorize all they want, but many of us know the truth as stated in the Bible.

That snakes eat dust?

17 posted on 02/03/2004 2:59:09 PM PST by SedVictaCatoni (You keep nasty chips.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Southflanknorthpawsis
One could argue that the serpent in Genesis is not a snake but rather a representation of evil but this article and scripture don't contradict a literal reading.
18 posted on 02/03/2004 2:59:55 PM PST by VRWC_minion (Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and most are right)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: AdmSmith
There isn't even enough fossil evidence to complete the evoluationary fairy tale in theory.

"The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nods of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils. Yet Darwin was so wedded to gradualism that he wagered his entire theory on a denial of this literal record." (Gould, Stephen J. "The Panda’s Thumb, 1980, p. 181)

"Fossil discoveries can muddle over attempts to construct simple evolutionary trees--fossils from key periods are often not intermediates, but rather hode podges of defining features of many different groups... Generally, it seems that major groups are not assembled in a simple linear or progressive manner--new features are often "cut and pasted" on different groups at different times." (Shubin, Neil, "Evolutionary Cut and Paste," Nature, vol. 349, 1998, p. 39.)

"Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn’t changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin’s time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information..." (Raup, David M., "Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology," Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, vol. 50, 1979, p. 25.)

"Large evolutionary innovations are not well understood. None has ever been observed, and we have no idea whether any may be in progress. There is no good fossil record of any." (Wesson, R., Beyond Natural Selection, 1991, p. 206)

19 posted on 02/03/2004 3:01:29 PM PST by Ol' Sparky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cyborg; shaggy eel
Yikes! Straight out of Dr. Bukks
20 posted on 02/03/2004 3:01:36 PM PST by ErnBatavia (Some days you're the windshield; some days you're the bug)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 321-333 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson