Convergent evolution News

Convergent evolution: When snakes crowdsource

Spread the love

Further to Snakes are not smart, it seems they nonetheless converge on similar workable solutions:

On opposite sides of the globe over millions of years, the snakes of North America and Australia independently evolved similar body types that helped them move and capture prey more efficiently. Snakes on both continents include stout-bodied, highly camouflaged ambush predators, such as rattlesnakes in North America and death adders in Australia. There are slender, fast-moving foragers on both continents, as well as small burrowing snakes. This independent evolution of similar body forms in response to analogous ecological conditions is a striking example of a phenomenon called convergence.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

10 Replies to “Convergent evolution: When snakes crowdsource

  1. 1
    OldArmy94 says:

    Either that or they were designed for their niches…

    Nah, couldn’t be that.

  2. 2
    mahuna says:

    See also this article about remarkably similar but unrelated Sea Snakes–

    http://www.foxnews.com/science.....ts-in-two/

    In part–

    “Scientists once thought that snakes in Australia and Asia were the same species, Enhydrina schistosa. The snakes from these regions do look similar, with beaklike mouths that have a notch between the lower jaws.

    “However, when University of Queensland researcher Bryan Fry and colleagues tested the serpentine DNA, the results showed that they were separate species, and not even close relatives”

    Sea snakes are a special oddity because, like whales, adapting to life in salt water requires many, many changes to the original dry land design. And then there is the mystery of how they developed poison, especially since sea snake poison is the most deadly in the world.

    So once again we have 2 VERY similar species occupying the same niche, but widely separated geographically, that are UNRELATED. And this can be explained by descent (from different ancestors) with modification how?

  3. 3
    Robert Byers says:

    DNA is not evidence creatures are not related. marsupials are just placentals with pouches but have DNA unique to marsupials in some ways. DNA follows changes and is not a path otherwise.
    Snakes did not evolve by convergence but simply come from a pair off the ark.

  4. 4
    Acartia_bogart says:

    “Snakes did not evolve by convergence but simply come from a pair off the ark.”

    What did they eat when on the ark? And what did the lions and tigers and bears eat? Sorry, but the math doesn’t work.

  5. 5
    Barb says:

    So once again we have 2 VERY similar species occupying the same niche, but widely separated geographically, that are UNRELATED. And this can be explained by descent (from different ancestors) with modification how?

    I think the typical Darwinian response is, “Well, they’re here, so obviously it happened!”

  6. 6
    willh says:

    “Sorry, but the math doesn’t work.”

    Does the math have to work in this case?

  7. 7
    Acartia_bogart says:

    “Does the math have to work in this case?”

    Yes. Are you suggesting that the ark doesn’t have to follow the laws of physics? Or that the animals contained within don’t have to follow their own nature?

  8. 8
    willh says:

    Acarta_bogart

    “Yes. Are you suggesting that the ark doesn’t have to follow the laws of physics? Or that the animals contained within don’t have to follow their own nature?”

    No but like an aeroplane wing to the pre-modern age, which does use physical laws, Ark construction and animal behaviour control were beyond mere human capabilities.

    I cannot say what or if the Creator intervened to solve our query, the scriptures do not directly comment. But there is this:

    Daniel 6:21,22: Daniel immediately said to the king: “O king, may you live on forever. 22?My God sent his angel and shut the mouth of the lions, and they have not harmed me, for I was found innocent before him; nor have I done any wrong to you, O king.”

    It is often overlooked, that in trying to disprove a Scriptural claim by referring to currently limiting physical factors, the Scriptures actually agree that those very limiting situations make it well nigh impossible for us. I’m sure King Darius expected Daniel to be eaten, though he hoped his God would intervene. Could not God have intervened in the case of Noah as He did with Daniel?

  9. 9
    Acartia_bogart says:

    “Could not God have intervened in the case of Noah as He did with Daniel?”

    Sure. But isn’t that just kicking everything we don’t understand upstairs? It is the fact that there are some humans who don’t do this that has resulted in all of the advances that we have seen over the last few centuries.

  10. 10
    willh says:

    Acartia_bogart

    “Sure. But isn’t that just kicking everything we don’t understand upstairs?”

    I would say that the desire to understand is vital, and close mindedness or rigid thinking can be faulted, and your quite correct to point this out. However in the case of Scriptural claims to the miraculous, whatever you believe of them, they suggest knowledge we don’t yet have, and may never have.

    If indeed events at the deluge, prove to be applied science beyond our ken, denying that they are possible based on our own limited abilities, could lead us to the wrong conclusion. We may then dismiss any further thought or search in the right direction, creating the very mental stagnation your comments indirectly suggest.

    Honestly identifying impossible or wrong avenues is not necessarily close mindedness; it’s sometimes the correct choice before advancement. This is common in historical engineering achievements. To recognize this is in no way side stepping the issue.

Leave a Reply