Slashdot Mirror
Most Primitive Snake Fossil Discovered
smooth wombat writes "A newly discovered fossil seems to suggest that snakes evolved on land rather than in the water. The size of the fossil is unknown but it wasn't more than three feet long according to Hussam Zaher of the University of Sao Paulo in Brazil.
It's the first time scientists have found a snake with a sacrum -- a bony feature supporting the pelvis -- he said. That feature was lost as snakes evolved from lizards, and since this is the only known snake that hasn't lost it, it must be the most primitive known, he said."
Was a fossilized plane found nearby?
I know there has to be a joke in here someplace. but politicians need not apply, since snakes are mostly backbone as it is.
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
Having a feature makes you more primitive than not having a feature?
Wow! The final proof that men are more primitive than women!
All this is very good and important as we fill the evolutionary gaps. While it will never be enough to convince the 'god did it' crowd it does make the rest of us feel better seeing the evidence pile up. But my original thought when reading this story was wondering when scientists will be able to determine whether lawyers are more closely related to snakes or to slime molds. I'm crossing my fingers for slime molds. I like snakes.
Enjoy your Karma, after all you earned it. Feel your Karma Joe, feel it burn.
Since I don't believe in karma anyway, I don't mind losing it for posting an unpopular view: Perhaps this discovery gives credence to the accuracy of the Bible.
:)
The serpent in the Biblical account of Genesis 3 was apparently a very different creature from modern day snakes. Besides the fact that the serpent spoke aloud (Genesis 3:1 - generally accepted to be Satan speaking through the serpent), it must have had some other means of locomotion besides crawling. The curse upon the serpent is recorded in Genesis 3:14 as such:
And the Lord God said unto the serpent, "Because you have done this, you are cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon your belly shall you go, and dust shall you eat all the days of your life."
"Eating dust" is generally accepted to mean that the serpent is cursed to have its face on the ground, not that its diet would actually consist of dirt.
Go ahead, mod me down and flame me.
-azmaveth
I've seen a real primitive one a whole bunch of times. It's only got one eye.
The second option - the current leading theory - is that snakes evolved in the sea, lost their legs there, and that the snake found on land was some kind of genetic throwback, a branch that had nothing to do with the main line of snakes. This theory assumes that this find is NOT more primitive than the older fossils, but that the older fossils are more primitive by virtue of being considerably older.
It does raise a number of problems, though, in that although there were sea-based snakes that did have legs, there is no evidence whatsoever that snakes ever evolved in the seas. The only reason this was seriously considered, in recent times, was that a precursor had to exist with legs, and the only snake fossils with legs that were known were all from aquatic deposits.
The next-best theory is that snakes evolved on land and migrated back into the sea at a time when they still had legs. Migrations back into the ocean have happened - the Manatee had a common land ancestor with a Giraffe, and Cetaceans are believed to have evolved from a land-based fox-like creature. Such "reverse" migrations, then, have occurred before - probably quite a lot.
The problem here is that, as I mentioned, the aquatic fossils are almost ten million years older. That's a LOT of time to account for, as it would require land snakes to have existed equally as long, plus enough extra to have a common ancestor that had evolved far enough to be identifiably a snake, plus as much additional time as needed to have forked off an aquatic branch of the family.
No land-based snake fossils with legs have been found for the timeframe required. This doesn't necessarily mean a whole lot - snakes don't fossilize that well, not many people hunt fossil snakes, the odds of a discoverer realizing what they had AND publishing that fact are low, and since the aquatic theory held supreme, not many people were looking for those fossils in locations that would have been land at the time.
On the other hand, it is extremely poor science to draw conclusions from evidence that is merely assumed to exist of an event that may never have happened at all. It is very easy to prove some pet theory, if you only ever have to assume the evidence might exist to do so.
It is wrong to say that this recent find has helped anyone understand the evolution of snakes. The strongest statement that can be made is that it helps to establish where to look and what to look for.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Yes and no.
This snake, with the sacrum, had to come before modern snakes. But evolution isn't a process of an entire species becoming an entire new species.
A group of these snakes could have been geographically isolated, during which time they evolved further, losing the sacrum. Meanwhile, others of this species were still happily breeding elsewhere.
So it could be possible to find a sacrum-less fossil older (though probably not by much) than this one.
Comparing the quoted date for the fossil and the often quoted date for Genesis, the snake in TFA would appear to have died and fossilised millions of years before Genesis, so obviously they are different snakes.
/sarcasm
I can only speculate that the Genesis snake is an ancestor of the snake with hips, this makes some sense, a talking snake would take millions of years to evolve, it would also tie in nicely with the slim evidence we have of a two legged Genesis snake.
As an aside, it appears that the talking snake branch of the tree of life ended in extinction, nobody knows exactly when but it was at some time after Kipling made his observations in "Jungle book". Perhaps religious fanatics arriving in India from the British empire killed the last of the talking snakes to stop them spreading "heresies", they could have been very effective given the local abundance of trained snake charmers.
Now before you go objecting that nothing is older than Genesis, let me tell you about karma. You see the knowledge from the knowledge tree, (and the snake's so called "heresy"), has nothing to do with apples or sex. "The fruit of the knowlage tree" is the knowladge that this partciular Universe is not God's first attempt. This is not to say God is ever wrong, (re: Douglas Adams and the babblefish), it just that God's taste changes from time to time and sometimes to redecorate you have to remodle everything to express the "real you".
From what I understand the original Universe goes back some 13-14BYA, since then God has completely remoddeled the Universe a few times, Genesis was only a redecoration of the plenet Earth. God is not a wastefull God, recycling plays a big part when God spruces-up the Universe (thus karma, 90MYA snake fossils, and an annoying but usefull microwave hiss). This current redecoration of Earth was progressing nicely until God decided to reuse teenagers and talking snakes instead of re-evolving them, since then few have seen God and everything has turned to shit.
OTOH: We know the talking snakes have already died out, perhaps God knows something about our survival prospects and assumed importance in "the scheme of things" that we don't?
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.