the oldest snake

[lostwithin]

I beleive Jimmy has a point that 'snakes' have more in-common with 'fish', than 'snakes' to 'lizards'.

What exactly do snakes and fish have in common ??

I think everyone should keep in mind that the theory isn’t that snakes evolved from lizards, Snakes evolved or I should say for arguments sake, at the present time and all information and testing done to date points to the fact that snakes and lizards evolved form a common ancestor. Not that one evolved from the other.

[JimmyDavid]

Lizards are supposed to be much older than snakes, lostwithin. You make it sound like they both started their evolution paths in paralel.
And fish are even older, so either you want it or not, both snakes and lizards share that common background.

[lostwithin]

Lizards are supposed to be much older than snakes, lostwithin. You make it sound like they both started their evolution paths in parallel.

Lizards as we know them are no "older" then snakes, you said it yourself they both come from common ancestors, Neither is any older then the other, One may bare more of a resemblance to the ancestral species. And of course you can trace all animals back far enough to find common ancestors, but that wasn’t the point here. The point was that lizard’s do share more in common snakes then fish would, because they are "closer" to each other biologically speaking.

Earlier in the post you were implying snakes didn’t evolve from lizards and now your arguing they did.

Those eyes without lids, several rows of teeth, think about it...snakes are just enlongated fish.

You cannot expect me to take an argument seriously if you can’t pick a side, you seem to just argue for the sake of arguing. Most likely because yet again you are arguing something you don’t understand.

Now I really don’t want to get into another debate with you about evolution. You had me almost pulling my hair out with your shear ignorance of the facts last time. So please don’t start that same argument again again.

Devon

EDIT : also feel free to use my name rather then lostwithin, if you would like.

[timfriesen32]

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

[lostwithin]

Yes, there is that possibility as well, there will always be people who cling to the belief that everything just appeared out of thin air fully developed despite the obvious facts and research that proves otherwise. But to each his own.

Devon

[timfriesen32]

What about the creation theory? That doesn't involve everything "appearing out of thin air". That involves everything being created by a higher power.

But, as long as everything, creation theory, and evloution theory, still have the word theory following them, thats all they are....is theories, and not facts. Each have their strengths and weaknesses, but neither can be proved.

TIm

[lostwithin]

I don’t want to get into the "creation theory" on an online forum, it's too much of a touchy subject, and it's too easy to misinterpret comments, and I would hate to offend someone. I will say that there are several different types of theories some that have been tested and stand up to the facts and others that have not.

Devon

[RB420]

ok so im not scientist, im just throwing ideas out in the air here...BUT..... maybe snakes just originated as an aquatic species, and the adapted to being on land later on down the evolution chain. several thing evolved independantly, in water, then later on some became land dwelling....doesn't mean they are all related to fish exactly...so maybe FISh isn't the right term to be using......but i dunno, i hope you get my point....seeing as how i have absolutely no education on the subject i find it difficult to express my thoughts in the approprait terms sometimes.

[lostwithin]

One of the commonly accepted theories is that "snakes" evolved from an aquatic reptile that latter moved back onto land. Many animals show this trend of adapting back and forth from land to water, through out evolutionary history.

Devon

[RB420]

either way the are pretty damn fascinating animals

[JimmyDavid]

Everyone has the right to say "heck, i don't know that much about it, but to me it kind of makes sense THIS way..."

My goal with this post was just to share that pic, wich i thought was interesting. then someone presented a little thought of it's own about evolution (wich is quite fine), i threw my own thought there as well (is it less fine?) and then, OF COURSE, someone had to come along and turn this thread about a contest to see who is more educated on the subject of evolution.
Relax, you see, sometimes it's just about the fun of talking, not saying "I know it better than you do".

[K1LOS]

Do boa's not still have traces of hip-bones? I know you can see the spurs, which like JimmyDavid said, could be reminance of fins, but i thought there was some form of hip-bone left as well. Maybe not...

And who ever that was that was talking about the creation theory, please do start a thread about it. As of now, i see absolutely no reason to believe in that theory, where as i see plenty of evidence to back up the evolution.

To me, one is religion and one is science. But go ahead, start a thread, and see if you can convince me! I'd like to hear your side of things.

Geoff

[timfriesen32]

You are correct. One is science, and one is religion. If I'm correct in my understanding of the rules of this forum, religion and politics are not allowed to be discussed.

It would be an interesting thread, but I won't be the one to start it.

The reason that the evolution theory hasn't got me convinced is the many holes and gaps that they haven't been able to 100 % prove actually existed.

Like I mentioned before. As long as the word theory is attached to the title (and I think evolution is still refered to as a theory, as well as creation) thats all it is is a theory....not proof, or fact, just theory.

If you'd like to discuss the creation theory, pm if you'd like. I'll give you my opinion, but thats all it is, is my opinion.

TIm

[RB420]

Must......bite.......tongue.......

[galad]

lol monty couldnt agree more.