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 ...
I am not perfect and neither is my understanding of anything.
God, however, is perfect. When perfect God tells me something that is, from all indications, literal, I believe it.
When He speaks to me in a clear use of metaphors/parables, I will interpret accordingly.
Perhaps you have some magical way of cutting through more deeply than that. At least you think you do.
If you really have read the Bible and can't see the distinction between literal and figurative, you may have not been paying close attention or ignored the context.
I have no problem with that. At least in principle. But there is a point at which not being satisfied is a symptom of refusing to eat.
When you discuss snakes eating dust you are quite willing to accept that snakes do not depend on dust for nourishment. You accept this perhaps because you have witnessed snakes eating frogs, mice or whatever. Perhaps you have studied snakes in captivity and calculated their caloric intake from various sources.
But I doubt this. I suspect you accept the statements of scientists who have done these studies. So your acceptance that snakes really live by eating other animals is really based of faith. Actually it is probably a religion.
Your interpretation. Your list of indications. But you are not God, and your list of indications is not the only possible list.
Once more, are you perfect?
Far from it, but you are incapable of understanding that too.
"The great need today then in determining what the Bible really teaches is a correct method of interpretation. If the Bible is the Word of God and God's revelation to man, then surely God would not give us His revelation without a way to discern what He meant. For God not to give us a way to interpret the Bible is to leave the interpretation of Scripture to human wisdom that is at best faulty. To have the interpretation of Scripture rest on man's wisdom is to have "flesh" interpreting that which is spiritual.
The problem today is not, that God did not give us a method of interpretation. God gave us a method, but man has refused to use it or not been diligent in seeking it! The method that God gave is the literal method, or what man has labeled the Grammatical-Historical Method. The Grammatical-Historical method interprets Scripture by taking into consideration the context of a passage, the grammatical uses of the words and the historical setting in which they were written. The literal method, "lets Scripture interpret Scripture" thus it is God who interprets His word for us. It is not a new method in any sense of the word and is the only method in which the Scriptures interpret the Scriptures. < snip >
The literal method is letting God interpret what He has said. Surely, God is best qualified to tell us what He means. The Bible is the complete word of God to man. Revelation 22:18, says man is not to add to the Word of God, the Bible. II Timothy 3:16-17, clearly states that God gave us the Bible. The verses tell us that the Bible is " . . . profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works." When God "breathed" on the writers of Scripture they literally produced the Word of God, completely and accurately. The doctrine of "verbal plenary inspiration," means God chose each word God for its specific meaning. When God inspired the writers to use a word it was because that word conveyed a certain meaning. It communicated a certain meaning to those who read it. This means that if we find what was the correct meaning of the word, considering its context, normal and customary usage at the time it was used, we can know the correct interpretation."
Cooper P. Abrams, III
Nah....really????? I'm so shocked.
That is how I interpret "all indications".
Speaking of truth in the Bible, maybe you can help me with this vexing issue...
Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?
I choose to believe the Creator of the universe and that everything that exists could not be so were it not for Him. I also believe that He did not inspire the Bible to be a book for me to pick apart and play with to fit my observations of the world around me.
As I have said before...I take God at His word and place that trust above anything man claims.
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.