The "Lets Not be Snake Food" Theory.

Interesting Theory. Just thought I'd share for those interested, as I don't want to be responsible for an evolution debate amongst our big happy herping family. :fim: I almost didn't post it for that reason, but I think it's a kinda neat idea that snakes may have helped make us what we are. :snake:

http://www.livescience.com/animalwor...e_primate.html

Here's a snippet from the article.
"An evolutionary arms race between early snakes and mammals triggered the development of improved vision and large brains in primates, a radical new theory suggests.

The idea, proposed by Lynne Isbell, an anthropologist at the University of California, Davis, suggests that snakes and primates share a long and intimate history, one that forced both groups to evolve new strategies as each attempted to gain the upper hand.

To avoid becoming snake food, early mammals had to develop ways to detect and avoid the reptiles before they could strike. Some animals evolved better snake sniffers, while others developed immunities to serpent venom when it evolved. Early primates developed a better eye for color, detail and movement and the ability to see in three dimensions—traits that are important for detecting threats at close range."

Evolution rocks! I love Discovery Channel and have recently watched two really interesting programs involving snakes.

One was showing a certain hot snake that over the years it's primary prey has developed a genetic immunity to that particular snakes venom. They put forth the theory that enough of these rodents got nipped but not killed that at some point they began to develop an immunity and were able to pass it on to their young. (sorry I wish I noted stuff down better as to which snake and which prey...it was some sort of rodent).

Then there was this interesting one about chimps that were completely zoo bred and raised. Never interacted with a snake in their lives but had an instinctive reaction and particular alarm call specifically for snakes. Yet they'd never seen a snake! They even reacted to rubber snakes as if they were live. A specific alarm call went out. The mother chimps took off with their young and the dominant male went over and poked at the rubber snake with a stick and reacted with obvious fear and apprehension....having never in it's life actually seen a snake but knowing exactly how to safely deal with one. How cool is that!

Man, some days I really wish I had cable! But this is why I usually love PBS :D

I saw a similar thing to the snake/rodent venom immunity except it was the opposite... like a poisonous frog or salamander (I don't remember which) that gets more and more poisonous as the local snakes grow more and more immune. Evolution in action! Chemical weapon arms race! Amphibians are the craziest with the arms race, I think. They adopt/change in relation to their environment so fast, it seems like!

I hadn't heard the chimp thing though! That's awesome. Snakes are so a part of everyone's psyche... myths, legends, nature, evolution... I've even read a theory once that the reasons cats hiss is to immitate snakes, because most animals are more intimidated by snakes than they are cats. (maybe this is why Tigers don't feel the need to hiss? lol!). I just love it. They're such special creatures, in every culture and environment. :love: Just amazing!

jo,

my hubby is almost positive it's a honey badger and a cobra.

;)
aleesha
ps my hubby is a walking encyclopedia :wuv:

Discovery Channel? Everytime I turn it on it's some dum cab show or American Choppers. What time do these evolution and animal shows come on (particularly snakes and arachnids)?

we watch a LOT of national geographic channel... great stuff on there :)

corwin's quest is usually pretty good.
venom e r is GREAT.
snake buster all on animal planet...

I know with National Geographic's website you can go through their listings and have them email you when a show you want to see if coming on. Maybe Discovery does the same or has online listing you can view. I just usually flick through and end up doing the "Mike come quick it's something on about snakes!!!!" thing LOL

I did a bit of research and apparently it's not that unheard of to become somewhat immune to venom. Here's a quote from a website on the Quail Ridge Reserve talking about this very thing.

"California ground squirrels have evolved immunity to the venom of western rattlesnakes. In populations sympatric with rattlesnakes, adults are relatively immune, while juveniles and populations outside the range of rattlesnakes are susceptible to venom."

I know it wasn't ground squirrels on that show so it seems another rodent has figured out how to get around the predators in their lives at least to some degree.

The really funky part of this chimp thing is if you believe in Darwin's theories and the fact that we share so much genetic similarities with chimps, there are those that say our fear of snakes comes down from that instinctive reaction. Basically a racial memory concept. Who knows...just kind of interesting.

Not that I disagree with frankykeno's comment about Darwin's theories being a possible reason for humans' instinctive fear of snakes, you also have to take into account that there was a significant risk to early humans who settled mainly in the Nile river valleys which were tropical and did (do, still, lol) house venemous snakes in the form of snakes, which possibly could have added to the probably already present instinctive fear of snakes. A cow or buffalo will jump if you make a rattling sound near it even if it's never seen a rattlesnake or a snake of any sort before, after all, because of the evolution of rattles on rattlesnakes to warn buffalo not to step on them. I don't think it really takes all that long for a species to develop a life preservational instinct, does it?

Of course, I'm not arguing--just butting in to add that...I believe in Darwin's theories, I just like discussing this kind of thing. ^-^; saw this thread and it looked interesting. *science nerd?*

Very likely, but an animal will tend to spook at almost ANYTHING that it isn't familiar with...even the mundane stuff like keys or a plastic bag. That's why good saddle horses have been "sacked" out with aaaaaaall sorts of different things to help make them "bomb proof".



But I loooooove Discovery and NG!! Robin and I have a collection of their videos and DVDs.


R.

The idea of racial cellular memory is interesting, I've never really thought of it in terms of instincts, perhaps because I've heard a number of "past life memory=ancestral memory" sorts of theories that I dunno how to feel about. But like the instinctual reactions, like salmon knowing where to go to spawn etc... that's really interesting.

It is a tricky theory to test though. Hmm... An animal's personality and cleverness always come into play too. Nature likes to be unpredictable like that sometimes. ;)

Something that cats have in common with snakes is that they both have Jacobsen's organs to aid their taste of prey when hunting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MedusasOwl

Man, some days I really wish I had cable! But this is why I usually love PBS :D

I saw a similar thing to the snake/rodent venom immunity except it was the opposite... like a poisonous frog or salamander (I don't remember which) that gets more and more poisonous as the local snakes grow more and more immune. Evolution in action! Chemical weapon arms race! Amphibians are the craziest with the arms race, I think. They adopt/change in relation to their environment so fast, it seems like!

I hadn't heard the chimp thing though! That's awesome. Snakes are so a part of everyone's psyche... myths, legends, nature, evolution... I've even read a theory once that the reasons cats hiss is to immitate snakes, because most animals are more intimidated by snakes than they are cats. (maybe this is why Tigers don't feel the need to hiss? lol!). I just love it. They're such special creatures, in every culture and environment. :love: Just amazing!

---

I heard that Cane Toad posion is becoming more and more toxic with each generation. but some snakes stay ahead of the curb as well. I heard about a snake here in the US that still is able to eat the Cane Toad with out any effects at all.... saw a photos of it some where too... something about "a ---snake enjoys a meal of can toad.----- note the milky posion oozing out the mouth of the snake, not having any effect what so ever" something like that ... it was cool though.

Mother Nature is such a smart old broad! :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by frankykeno

The really funky part of this chimp thing is if you believe in Darwin's theories and the fact that we share so much genetic similarities with chimps, there are those that say our fear of snakes comes down from that instinctive reaction. Basically a racial memory concept. Who knows...just kind of interesting.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MedusasOwl

The idea of racial cellular memory is interesting, I've never really thought of it in terms of instincts, perhaps because I've heard a number of "past life memory=ancestral memory" sorts of theories that I dunno how to feel about. But like the instinctual reactions, like salmon knowing where to go to spawn etc... that's really interesting.

---

Cellular memory, radical memory, radical cellular memory, past life memory, whatever you want to call it has nothing to do with Darwinism........

Our instinctual reaction to sakes and chimps’ instinctual response to snakes, in terms of Darwinism, would be explained by descent with modification (not cellular memory)

A valid articulation of Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection would be something along the lines…..

Chimps and Humans are derived from an ancestral species....the population of that ancestral hominid species contained individuals with different genes...those members with genes that caused them to be jumpy around snakes survived and reproduced at greater rates than those that didn’t have these genes…..when the parent species gave rise to two daughter species these genetically wired instincts were maintained down the hominid family tree.

This is only one possible articulation of Darwinian perspective….not trying to piss anyone off….but lets not confuse ideas here.

_______________________________________________________________________

On a different note…….


Cellular memory itself is a confusing term…...to molecular, cellular, and developmental biologists it means a very specific thing (phenomena collectively known as epigenetics)

Cellular memory also could mean the radical overarching, pseudoscientific theories described here…….. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_memory ; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellular_memory; http://skepdic.com/cellular.html


I'm not sure which one you two meant but nethier has very little to do with traditional Darwinism.

Good find on the livescience page!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jessie_k_pythons

I heard that Cane Toad posion is becoming more and more toxic with each generation. but some snakes stay ahead of the curb as well. I heard about a snake here in the US that still is able to eat the Cane Toad with out any effects at all.... saw a photos of it some where too... something about "a ---snake enjoys a meal of can toad.----- note the milky posion oozing out the mouth of the snake, not having any effect what so ever" something like that ... it was cool though.

---

This info is from this site...
There is also an Australian snake species called the Keelback or Freshwater snake (Tropidonophis mairi) which is reportedly immune to the toad's toxin also some debate still rages as to whether it really is immune or if it is only non-toxic juveniles that can be taken. There are other Australian snakes that may be immune and work is in progress in the Northern Territory under the supervision of Dr. Rick Shine of Sydney University.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mendel's Balls

Cellular memory, radical memory, radical cellular memory, past life memory, whatever you want to call it has nothing to do with Darwinism........

Our instinctual reaction to sakes and chimps’ instinctual response to snakes, in terms of Darwinism, would be explained by descent with modification (not cellular memory)

A valid articulation of Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection would be something along the lines…..

Chimps and Humans are derived from an ancestral species....the population of that ancestral hominid species contained individuals with different genes...those members with genes that caused them to be jumpy around snakes survived and reproduced at greater rates than those that didn’t have these genes…..when the parent species gave rise to two daughter species these genetically wired instincts were maintained down the hominid family tree.

This is only one possible articulation of Darwinian perspective….not trying to piss anyone off….but lets not confuse ideas here.

_______________________________________________________________________

On a different note…….


Cellular memory itself is a confusing term…...to molecular, cellular, and developmental biologists it means a very specific thing (phenomena collectively known as epigenetics)

Cellular memory also could mean the radical overarching, pseudoscientific theories described here…….. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_memory ; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellular_memory; http://skepdic.com/cellular.html


I'm not sure which one you two meant but nethier has very little to do with traditional Darwinism.

Good find on the livescience page!

---

Yeah, it is confusing, I guess mostly I was babbling and trying to figure out how instinct works exactly. I mean, I understand evolution in terms of physical development/natural selection and even in terms of cleverness, but I'd never thought about how exactly instincts develop... does that make sense?

I mean, on a completely different page from the reaction to snakes because the way you put it makes a lot of sense. A physical reaction that's favored by natural selection. That makes more sense to me now in terms of Darwin's theory. But that's more reflex than instinct, isn't it? The direction my brain started moving in was animals that migrate or just naturally know certain behaviors specific to their species... where's the line between instinct and reflex? It's completely off topic from the original stuff we were talking about, but I'm all curious now, lol. Cellular memory was a red herring, apparently . :fishslap:

Seeing as I'm too lazy to find the post, I'll just make mention of it. Someone had mentioned Darwin's Theory and how our genetics are very similar with primates. That's true. We've got 98% of the same genetics with primates, HOWEVER, we've also got approximately 37% of the same genes with another species of flower. I'm not about to spout out the idea that evolution is completely false, however, there's very little proof that proves it. -Shrugs.-

But...back to the topic at hand. I think these adaptations, not so much evolutions, are quite amazing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MedusasOwl

Yeah, it is confusing, I guess mostly I was babbling and trying to figure out how instinct works exactly. I mean, I understand evolution in terms of physical development/natural selection and even in terms of cleverness, but I'd never thought about how exactly instincts develop... does that make sense?

I mean, on a completely different page from the reaction to snakes because the way you put it makes a lot of sense. A physical reaction that's favored by natural selection. That makes more sense to me now in terms of Darwin's theory. But that's more reflex than instinct, isn't it? The direction my brain started moving in was animals that migrate or just naturally know certain behaviors specific to their species... where's the line between instinct and reflex? It's completely off topic from the original stuff we were talking about, but I'm all curious now, lol. Cellular memory was a red herring, apparently . :fishslap:

---

A Reflex by definition is an involuntary response to a stimulus in the environment. Reflexes can be learned or inherited. Those reflexes that are inherited are instinctual reflexes. Babies have instinctual reflexes including things like crying when hungry, the newborn grasping and breast sucking reflexes, and shivering when cold.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Melicious

Seeing as I'm too lazy to find the post, I'll just make mention of it. Someone had mentioned Darwin's Theory and how our genetics are very similar with primates. That's true. We've got 98% of the same genetics with primates, HOWEVER, we've also got approximately 37% of the same genes with another species of flower. I'm not about to spout out the idea that evolution is completely false, however, there's very little proof that proves it. -Shrugs.-

But...back to the topic at hand. I think these adaptations, not so much evolutions, are quite amazing.

---

You missed my point.....I was pointing out what is Darwinism and what isnt.....Oh and Darwin didnt come up with the idea of evolution.....there are a variety of mechanisms that one could invision that could cause species to evolve. Another mechanism of evolution is Lamarckian evolution.


I'll defend evolutionary biology very quickly here. The fact we share 37% of our DNA Sequences with a flower is hardly evidence against evolution.

Genes for enzymes involved for fundamental processes like cellular respiration are very conserved...they arent going to change much over the course of time. SO of course we share a fair amout of genetic material with very distantly related species......if we didnt that would be evidence against descent with modification.

The fact that we share 98% of our DNA sequence with chimps is more of a problem for genetics to explain than evolutionary biology. How do we explain the baltant phenotypic differences between us and chimps?

Molecular biology is finding a bunch of cool mechanisms for phenotypic difference beside different DNA sequences. RNA splicing, silencing, post-transplation modications, epigentic inheritance, these are all under active investigation.


PS>The big ideas in Science are never proven.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mendel's Balls

A Reflex by definition is an involuntary response to a stimulus in the environment. Reflexes can be learned or inherited. Those reflexes that are inherited are instinctual reflexes. Babies have instinctual reflexes including things like crying when hungry, the newborn grasping and breast sucking reflexes, and shivering when cold.




You missed my point.....I was pointing out what is Darwinism and what isnt.....Oh and Darwin didnt come up with the idea of evolution.....there are a variety of mechanisms that one could invision that could cause species to evolve. Another mechanism of evolution is Lamarckian evolution.


I'll defend evolutionary biology very quickly here. The fact we share 37% of our DNA Sequences with a flower is hardly evidence against evolution.

Genes for enzymes involved for fundamental processes like cellular respiration are very conserved...they arent going to change much over the course of time. SO of course we share a fair amout of genetic material with very distantly related species......if we didnt that would be evidence against descent with modification.

The fact that we share 98% of our DNA sequence with chimps is more of a problem for genetics to explain than evolutionary biology. How do we explain the baltant phenotypic differences between us and chimps?

Molecular biology is finding a bunch of cool mechanisms for phenotypic difference beside different DNA sequences. RNA splicing, silencing, post-transplation modications, epigentic inheritance, these are all under active investigation.


PS>The big ideas in Science are never proven.

---

Which is why the nice, slow rise in sequence of the horse was removed from the Museum of Natural History in New York. Because it was proven to be incorrect. Mendel, if you wouldn't mind, I'd like to take this to another thread...Let's stop mucking up this one. I've got some questions I'd like answered.

im starting to undertand it more

Wow. For some reason I doubt this thread will remained unlocked for long...

Edit: Python Kid edited his response that led to my comment. Hopefully this thread will continue unmolested...

i evolved with a skateboard that can take me over any obstacle,with swift speed and agility.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mendel's Balls

A Reflex by definition is an involuntary response to a stimulus in the environment. Reflexes can be learned or inherited. Those reflexes that are inherited are instinctual reflexes. Babies have instinctual reflexes including things like crying when hungry, the newborn grasping and breast sucking reflexes, and shivering when cold.

---

I'd never really given it thought before, so that was a really cool thing to realize... that instincts are really just inherited reflexes. I'd never considered them in those terms. Thank you! :pc: