Scientists Discover Where Snakes Lived When They Evolved into Limbless Creatures

Penn State ^ | 30 January 2004 | press release

[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.

[VRWC_minion]

1 down, 16 to go. On to bats being birds. Please educate us.

The scripture that was referred to says that bats fit into the definition of fowl which is the reference that bats are birds. Wouldn't you agree that they fit into this following defintion:

Number 5775

TDNT:
`owph {ofe} Word Origin:
from 5774 TDNT:
1582a Part of Speech:
Noun Masculine Usage in the KJV:
fowl 59, bird 9, flying 2, flieth 1

Total: 71Definition:

1. flying creatures, fowl, insects, birds
   1. fowl, birds
   2. winged insects

TDNT - Theological Dictionary of the New Testament; TWOT - Theological Word Book of the Old Testament

Number 5774

TDNT:
`uwph {oof} Word Origin:
a primitive root TDNT:
1582,1583,1583c AV - fly 17, (fly, flee...) away 6, faint 3, brandish 1, shine forth 1, set 1, weary 1, variant 2 Part of Speech:
TWOT - 1582,1583,1583c Usage in the KJV:
fly 17, (fly 0, flee...) away 6, faint 3, brandish 1, shine forth 1, set 1, weary 1, variant 2

Total: 32Definition:
v

1. to fly, fly about, fly away
   1. (Qal)
      1. to fly, hover
      2. to fly away
   2. (Hiphil) to cause to fly, light upon
   3. (Polel)
      1. to fly about or to and fro
      2. to cause to fly to and fro, brandish
   4. (Hithpolel) to fly away
2. (Qal) to cover, be dark n f
3. gloom

TDNT - Theological Dictionary of the New Testament; TWOT - Theological Word Book of the Old Testament

[Michael_Michaelangelo]

The success of Darwinism was accompanied by a decline in scientific integrity. ... To establish the continuity required by the theory, historical arguments are invoked even though historical evidence is lacking. Thus are engendered those fragile towers of hypotheses based on hypotheses, where fact and fiction intermingle in an inextricable confusion ... where deficiencies of the data were patched up with hypotheses, and the reader is left with the feeling that if the data do not support the theory they really ought to.”

– Dr. W. R. Thompson, Canadian entomologist, in the introduction to the 1956 reprint of Darwin’s Origin of Species.

[Dimensio]

Actually, it looks like Martin Luther was right all along. Highly recommended reading for all creationists; the science there is as sound as any of the arguments put forth against evolution.

[ZULU]

"According to the scripture there was a 1st man and he was Adam and he chose to disobey God."

I agree with this. Somewhere along the series of manlike creatures which preceded modern man, arose the "first" modern man, who was, indeed, Adam.

"Without Adam, Christ and the concept of redemption cannot apply."

No argument there.

[Dimensio]

Additional context for Thompson's quote.

Unfortunately, every site that reproduces his quote does not reproduce it in full context, so there's no way to really examine what he's saying.

[Doctor Stochastic]

The linked site doesn't seem to discuss whether professional wrestling is real or fake.

[whattajoke]

We should propose a CREVO thread rule about quotes rife with ellipses.

[whattajoke]

While applaud your attempt, using that definition of the original word ('owfe) would also mean that all flying things are therefore equivalent to fowl. Which would therefore mean that penguins = falcons = auks = flying foxes = robins = Archaeopteryx = vultures = flying tree frogs = bats = airplanes = Sinornis = ostriches = those balled up tee shirts they shoot into crowds at minor league sporting events.

[ZULU]

"You being a jerk in your posts"
(ad hominem)


"Did God breath life into man?"

Yes.

"I really do not care what fairy tale you believe in" - (more ad hominem)

If its a fairy tale I believe in, millions of other people -most fo them very well-educated and a good number of whom are Christians, are reading from the same Mother Goose Book.

"God did not create man directly "


He created man directly through evolution and breathed life into the first man - Adam - who the end product of that evolutionary creation.

"For God to have created man and breathed life into him He would have had to make him directly as a man and breathe life."

He did. God directly created man through evolution, a process He controls through the physical and chemical and biological laws He formulated.

"I just want you to admit that you believe that Genesis is wrong."
I don't believe Gensis is wrong. It is a perfectly good explanation for the purposes of the intent of the book and the audience which initially received it. You just have to read between the lines and not take every bit of it so literally.

"Maybe you think he create the sludge or some other primitive form, let it evolve and then breathed life into him?"

Precisely.

"Do you feel that all lower versions of man also had that soul," I don't know. I don't think the Bible addresses that issue and its a Theological, not a socientific one anyway. Regardless, Adam was the first man and the first creature capable of being "saved" by Christ's sacrifice.

"then moved him into the Garden, then made Eve?"

That's another subject, really.

"Or is Genesis completely wrong?"

Genesis is not wrong. I do believe that it can't be taken verbatim, word for word, without also taking into consideration the thrust of the message ebing delivered and the audience for whom it was intended at the time of its composition.

"Just be honest and stop dancing."

I am being honest and am not dancing.

"If you have no idea where the Garden of Eden was or what went on in there - how do you know that everything was not different than you imagine?"

No where in Genesis is there anything to imply that what existed in the Grden of Eden was substantially different than what has existed anywhere else. Having never been there myslef, I don't think I can expand upon it any more than that.

"So I would not be so cock sure that you have the truth on origins. "

YOU seem pretty sure about YOUR opinions.

"But you do as you please, just don't try to pass off the lie that Genesis and Evolutions are compatible."

Its not a lie. They are. When you say they are NOT compatible, you are agreeing with those atheists in the biological community who believe a series of random forituous accidents led to man.

[Doctor Stochastic]

Amusingly the Hugh Ross link refers to Thompson as a "creationist" and the DrDino link calls him an "evolutionary scientist."

[ZULU]

Martin Luther also approved of witch-burning and considered all non-Lutheran Proestants to be heretics.

[VRWC_minion]

I didn't invent the language. Look, it is what it is. If you want to impose meanings to the words that the original did not intend to prove your point your not on firm ground, are you ? Its clintonian isn't it ?

[VRWC_minion]

The first two examples you chose have proven to be crap, do you wish to be more selective ?

[VRWC_minion]

If true, its amazing because he didn't even know Hillary.

[ZULU]

Maybe he met one of her ancestors.

[Michael_Michaelangelo]

Is it true that ostriches do not attend to their eggs or young?

Proving Bible passages are correct is fun, but I'm afraid this will be the last one I look at.

From here:

What about the Ostrich?

**Ostriches definitely "leave" their nests -- in a study of 57 nests, Bertram found that "most were destroyed by predators after surviving for different and unpredictable periods of time." [25] As a result, "The great majority of ostrich nests did not produce any chicks, mainly because of predation." [71] Only 5 out of 57 had successful hatchings. [77]

**The secondary female ostriches -- what Bertram calls "minor hens" -- laid eggs in the nest, but thereafter "took no part in attending or guarding it, nor later in incubating it." [57] This sounds like "forsaking" and "cruel" behavior, subjectively speaking, to me! Bertram confirms the behavior of shoving the eggs of minor hens out of the nest as needed for space; only 20 eggs at most could be covered. This happened "at most incubating nests" [65]. The eggs shoved out "eventually rotted or were destroyed." [66]

**The male spends 71% of the incubating time on the nest; the major hen, 29%; the minor hens, as noted above, none.

[balrog666]

You forgot to address the young.

[VRWC_minion]

Actually, the complaint about the bible is out of context. Here is the full verse

Even jackals offer their breasts to nurse their young, but my people have become heartless like ostriches in the desert.

I doubt the Hebrews thought the ostriches nursed their young but they apparently are not all that protective of their own eggs. However, seeing that ostriches in fact have hearts, i guess this proves the bible wrong.

[Junior]

At least he used elipses. The vast majority of creationists can't even bring themselves to do anything that might indicate the quotes are taken out of context...

[balrog666]

At least he used elipses. The vast majority of creationists can't even bring themselves to do anything that might indicate the quotes are taken out of context...

If you want to dip your toe back into the slime, medved is posting his old bovine-fecal-matter posts over on Liberty Post.