the oldest snake

JimmyDavid · 04-29-05, 07:26 PM

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 · 04-29-05, 07:35 PM

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 · 04-29-05, 07:46 PM

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

timfriesen32 · 04-29-05, 07:51 PM

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

clint545 · 04-29-05, 07:57 PM

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

RB420 · 04-29-05, 07:58 PM

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 · 04-30-05, 09:05 AM

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 · 04-30-05, 10:46 AM

they did not evolve people how think they did are crazy

dr greenlove · 04-30-05, 12:16 PM

Quote:

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 · 05-01-05, 06:32 AM

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 · 05-01-05, 10:16 AM

"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 · 05-01-05, 10:42 AM

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 · 05-01-05, 11:33 AM

???

SnakeyeZ · 05-01-05, 12:01 PM

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 · 05-01-05, 12:58 PM

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.