Why snakes dont have legs......(Technical but interesting)

Ever wonder why snakes dont develop legs :snake:......well a science called "evo-devo" (evolutionary developmental biology) has come up with some answers that deal with group of genes called Hox genes.

From NCBI's Bookshelf an explanation.

Why Snakes Dont have legs

A nice figure here. The pic of the developing garter snake is worth a quick visit.

Finally the following paper is available for free.

:snake2:

I know why too! It says it in the bible.

I didnt hijack a thread. I posted where snakes lost there legs at. No need for the neg rep point. And look I made it public. You could have left your name and i could have simply told you why in a PM. But no.

It was me. There it's public. You knew who was anyway :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mendel's Balls

It was me. There it's public. You knew who was anyway :)

---

Why though? It wasnt high jacking a thread at all it was completly on topic.

Why give him a negative rep. point because he believe's in the bible and posted his opinion? I clearly do not see where he hijacked your thread.

Very interesting Mendel!

LMAO !! I got another one!! This time ist is about debbates..in the samel thread. I wasnt starting one I was posting my post. Man people are trigger happy tonight.

Who said i dont like revolutionary theory?

stangs, i 100% agree with you. you didnt hijack any thread. if mendals has the right to express he believes evolution i have no idea why he thinks you can't express that you believe Creation. its very selfish of him, i think, and docking your rep points because of it is definitely not necessary.

i also agree with you that it's in the Bible.:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mr~python

stangs, i 100% agree with you. you didnt hijack any thread. if mendals has the right to express he believes evolution i have no idea why he thinks you can't express that you believe Creation. its very selfish of him, i think, and docking your rep points because of it is definitely not necessary.

i also agree with you that it's in the Bible.:)

---

Better whatchout for them rep point then!! LOL!! The legs werent created off they were zapped off!!:carrot:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stangs13

The legs werent created off they were zapped off!!:carrot:

---

cursed off.;) :) lol, zapped is good enough though.

i dont care if they dock my rep points because of what i believe. i got 77. loosing 1 or 2 isnt gonna phase me at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mr~python

cursed off.;) :) lol, zapped is good enough though.

i dont care if they dock my rep points because of what i believe. i got 77. loosing 1 or 2 isnt gonna phase me at all.

---

Lucky I got 25...lol. Ill trade you. :nerd::8: Ok i think we are now HJ this thread.lol. But yes you haev the right term. They got no legs and venoum we got bit and die.

not necessarily. so far atleast one part of each of our posts has pertained to why snakes do not have legs. we've kept on subject.

this is officially my first post that has not pertained to the original subject in some way. to make it related..... SNAKE LEGS! lol, just kidding

Interesting. I saw some show on TV a while back about legless animals & how they got that way.

Also had something on the same show I believe about us in few hundred years no longer having a pinkie toe.

(This is not directed at any specific person, but to everyone who uses the "rep system" as a means of mere disagreement.)


There is absolutely no reason to give someone a neg rep simply because they express an opinion that is different from your own. Does his believing in Creation somehow cause some of your own brain cells to die? Does it hurt you in any way? Does it mean his input on this forum is any less valuable? If the answer to those is "no" then ther's no reason to ever look at the little reputation button.

And to the specific discussion at hand...if believing in Creation somehow makes a person's input here questionable and not worth considering....then maybe I should pack my own bags, too?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JLC

(This is not directed at any specific person, but to everyone who uses the "rep system" as a means of mere disagreement.)


There is absolutely no reason to give someone a neg rep simply because they express an opinion that is different from your own. Does his believing in Creation somehow cause some of your own brain cells to die? Does it hurt you in any way? Does it mean his input on this forum is any less valuable? If the answer to those is "no" then ther's no reason to ever look at the little reputation button.

And to the specific discussion at hand...if believing in Creation somehow makes a person's input here questionable and not worth considering....then maybe I should pack my own bags, too?

---

I took the comment as sarcasm trying to stir debate......There was no need to stir debate and apparently another person saw it that way too......for example, he could have said I dont believe in evolution or left his opinion to himself...Instead he was very smartalick in his reponse.

And when did I ever express an opinion in this thread? This thread wasnt about opinions.

My intention was not to turn this into a evolution vs. creaton debate....it was to show that different patterns of gene expression in Hox genes can explain different body plans.....or is that an opinion?

I personally think that giving someone negative points because you dont agree with their ideas is a very childish and immature way of handling a situation. If you disagree , then discuss it, or if you don't think the topic can be discussed in a civilized mature way, then walk away. I realize creation/evolution can be a heated topic, but still everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and according to site rules, no one should get negative points for expressing that opinion. I also agree with stangs on this one and take the creation side. I dont think anyone is disagreeing with the fact that genes control how bodys form and function, i think we all agree on that or we wouldnt buy morphs :P. But... I do think that given the very light hearted joking nature a large part of the posts in this site that something said with a less than strict professional format shouldnt be taken so seriously so suddenly.

He wasnt saying "No that way is wrong and the Bible states the right way" everyone knows it's in the bible...doesnt mean you believe it by saying its in there does it?
I'm going to get a negetive reputation point for this I'm sure....but realize freedom of speech and debate are both legal...maybe not in some places but you get what I mean...or maybe you dont.....

I dont like Stangs either but give the kid a break....:carrot:
And you said you dont want to turn this into a heated debate.....BUT who threw the negative reputation point first???

I too believe in creation. Without getting into a debate, which I will not do, nor will I try to "convert" any one of you, all I will say is this: I strongly disagree with the evolution theory. Please do not give me a negative rep. for stating my opinion, as I have no reputation to spare. LOL

Just playing devil's advocate....what relevence does yours and others' belief or non-belief in evolution have to do with the original topic of the thread?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheAudOne

I dont like Stangs either but give the kid a break....:carrot:
And you said you dont want to turn this into a heated debate.....BUT who threw the negative reputation point first???

---

Your probably right about that one.....I thought about just saying something in thread....perhaps that might have been better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lillyorchid

Interesting. I saw some show on TV a while back about legless animals & how they got that way.

Also had something on the same show I believe about us in few hundred years no longer having a pinkie toe.

---

This is an example of an on-topic response.

I'm sure most would agree that replying to a topic on evolution and taking a stand on the other side of the fence, in this case being creation, does nothing to add to the thread and instigates a heated debate.

It would be the same as someone asking a question about venomoids and receiving a reply like "venomoids are BAD!"... it doesn't add anything and just turns the thread into poo poo.

I agree with Mendel on this one. He started a scientific thread and Stangs jumped in and turned it into a debate on the second post. He didn't add anything to the thread and Mendel wasn't asking for opposing opinions. I'm not saying it's bad to state your opinion in any thread, but he certainly didn't add anything positive to the main topic.

FWIW, I found the links very interesting. The fossil record of snakes is pretty sparse, and I understand one theory is that snakes may have undergone several stages of evolution with regards to limbs in which they lost them and then gained them again perhaps more than once or twice during their evolutionary process.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xdeus

FWIW, I found the links very interesting. The fossil record of snakes is pretty sparse, and I understand one theory is that snakes may have undergone several stages of evolution with regards to limbs in which they lost them and then gained them again perhaps more than once or twice during their evolutionary process.

---

I read this somewhere too....I cant remember where.....I wondered about this and how it relates to the changes in Hox expression as I read the above links.

Very intersting read!

Although it is a much more general read on snakes as a whole the book "Snakes: The Evolution of Mystery In Nature" was a very good read that examined many of the different traits from locomotion to vestigal lungs, venom vs constriction and many other facets. If you can froogle up a copy or find one on alibris - highly reccomended!

Good read Mendel!......now why don't snakes have eyelids? :D :devilish:

Hmmm I went a-googlin on that one Daniel LOL. From what little I could find there is a theory that the lack of external ear canals and the fused permanent scale over their eyes is an evolutionary reaction to either subterranean or aquatic conditions. In either environment it would make sense to keep dirt or water out as much as possible so not having ear holes and unprotected eyes (or blinking eyelids...think dirt under an eyelid...OWWW) would be quite a handy thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheAudOne

I dont like Stangs either but give the kid a break....:carrot:

---

Aww Why dont you like me?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xdeus

I agree with Mendel on this one. He started a scientific thread and Stangs jumped in and turned it into a debate on the second post. He didn't add anything to the thread and Mendel wasn't asking for opposing opinions. I'm not saying it's bad to state your opinion in any thread, but he certainly didn't add anything positive to the main topic.

FWIW, I found the links very interesting. The fossil record of snakes is pretty sparse, and I understand one theory is that snakes may have undergone several stages of evolution with regards to limbs in which they lost them and then gained them again perhaps more than once or twice during their evolutionary process.

---

Ok how did I turn it into a debate? I never said my info was right. It is what my opinion is. Like it or not.

Also, I didnt say anything about his link.So what. Your all right it was a good read , but Just becasue i dotn post anything doesnt mean i dont like it. Sheesh.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by frankykeno

Hmmm I went a-googlin on that one Daniel LOL. From what little I could find there is a theory that the lack of external ear canals and the fused permanent scale over their eyes is an evolutionary reaction to either subterranean or aquatic conditions. In either environment it would make sense to keep dirt or water out as much as possible so not having ear holes and unprotected eyes (or blinking eyelids...think dirt under an eyelid...OWWW) would be quite a handy thing.

---

I have read this too, but with the part about the keeping water out makes you wonder about the whole nictitating membrane that crocs and frogs/toads have. Im not disagreeing it is just curious that they preferred to have a permenant scalation over the eye.

~Mike

Ain't Mother Nature a cool old broad LOL

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by frankykeno

Ain't Mother Nature a cool old broad LOL

---

That she is! :P

I don't know about the whole....'because they want to keep dirt out of the eye' reason....because if that was the case....most monitor lizards (since they burrow in soil alot) wouldn't have eyelids and would just shed eyecaps...maybe two different evolutionary paths?...only heaven knows...all we can do is guess ;)

And after all.....Snakes are just lizards without legs and eyelids :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mendel's Balls

I took the comment as sarcasm trying to stir debate......
My intention was not to turn this into a evolution vs. creaton debate....

---

Ok which one is it? You got what you asked for. And sometimes when you ask for something its not always what you thought it was going to be. I believe, and read the Bible. But agree its good to atlest have some knowledge what scientist are saying so when you hear it your not thrown off, also thats why none believers should read the Bible so they're atleast well educated in the other side's argument like whenever these things occur.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sapphire7

Ok which one is it? You got what you asked for. And sometimes when you ask for something its not always what you thought it was going to be. I believe, and read the Bible. But agree its good to atlest have some knowledge what scientist are saying so when you hear it your not thrown off, also thats why none believers should read the Bible so they're atleast well educated in the other side's argument like whenever these things occur.

---

First, how do you know how much I am educated in the bible?

I certainly am no expert....but I have read portions of it.

Second, does that mean I can criticize your "argument"? That's typically what happens in a debate......Is that what those who like to hijack this thread really want?

This is a scientific thread......by bringing the bible into it you either do as I ask.....and drop it or open the pages of the bible up for the scrutiny of science. There are numerous scientific inaccuracies in the bible...where would you like to start?

Or is it the goal of those who jump in to get the thread locked down and hence censored in the first place?

Look there are things for those of you who don't believe in evolution to get from this thread.....the pic of the garter snake embryo is cool regardless of your stance on evolution.

If you can view this as just developmental biology rather than evo-devo...perhaps you will learn something.

The words, prefixes Evo, Evolution, or Evolutionary shouldnt attract such a melee of anti-evolution reponses....how would you feel if the word bible in another thread prompt me to see that's wrong according science?

PS>Perhaps the bible isn't so anti-evolutionary after all?....God lets "the earth bring forth" the plants, rather than creating them directly (Genesis 1:11)

Why is it that just about every other thread in the forums can be "hijacked" with tongue-in-cheek jokes...ribaldry...and all around general silliness.....but this one can't? The original response to the original post was just that....a tongue-in-cheek joke. It wasn't until someone took serious offense to that, that the whole thread turned into what the original poster did not want.

However...the person posting a thread doesn't "own" it. Once you post something here, you leave it open to whatever discussion is going to come of it, whether that be serious discussion or not. If you prefer something more serious, feel free to continue to post and try to direct the conversation the way you'd like it to go.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JLC

Why is it that just about every other thread in the forums can be "hijacked" with tongue-in-cheek jokes...ribaldry...and all around general silliness.....but this one can't? The original response to the original post was just that....a tongue-in-cheek joke. It wasn't until someone took serious offense to that, that the whole thread turned into what the original poster did not want.

However...the person posting a thread doesn't "own" it. Once you post something here, you leave it open to whatever discussion is going to come of it, whether that be serious discussion or not. If you prefer something more serious, feel free to continue to post and try to direct the conversation the way you'd like it to go.

---

Fair enough......Here's what I believe is a more approriate reponse to discuss alternatives.....http://www.ball-pythons.net/forums/s...7&page=2&pp=10

Melicious did not let the thread get away from topic too much...she wasnt sarcastic in her first response and she ended up creating another thread.....which was locked eventually.

PS>From what I seen ob this site the normal life cycle of a thread is not usually filled with goofiness at the beginning of it. This usually happens towards the end of the thread.

What I've learned in life....that for sure comes in handy here....never take anything seriously....especially yourself....laugh and learn as much as often.....if you dont want a thread to be "high jacked" and you dont want anyone to comment on anything other then what you believe in the lock the stinking thing down....

Stangs:
I dont like anyone...so dont feel special....okay maybe I like Adam a little....but doesnt everyone?
But again Stangs....I wasnt being serious.....okay maybe a little....darn it I cant make up my mind today.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheAudOne

Stangs:
I dont like anyone...so dont feel special....okay maybe I like Adam a little....but doesnt everyone?
But again Stangs....I wasnt being serious.....okay maybe a little....darn it I cant make up my mind today.

---

Ok, i undersatnd.;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by daniel1983

Snakes are just lizards without legs and eyelids :D

---

The conjunction "and" is key.

I'd also add an "and"

and no external ear openings....

From Melissa Kapplan's page: "Some lizards, including the European legless lizard, California's legless lizard, and the Eastern glass snake (so called because of its defensive tail dropping tendencies) and slender legless lizards, are all lizards who have no legs, living lifestyles that make them unnecessary. They do have external ear openings and moveable eyelids like other lizards. Snakes have neither external ear openings nor moveable eyelids."

So it is a myth that all lizards have legs. (Dan probably knew this).

It be interesting to see the expression patterns of HoxC6 and HoxC8 genes are in legless lizards......it also be interesting to look at the DNA sequence homology of these genes and those of boids.

How legless are legless lizards too? DO these have vestiges of a pelvic griddle and femur?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mendel's Balls

The conjunction "and" is key.

I'd also add an "and"

and no external ear openings....

From Melissa Kapplan's page: "Some lizards, including the European legless lizard, California's legless lizard, and the Eastern glass snake (so called because of its defensive tail dropping tendencies) and slender legless lizards, are all lizards who have no legs, living lifestyles that make them unnecessary. They do have external ear openings and moveable eyelids like other lizards. Snakes have neither external ear openings nor moveable eyelids."

So it is a myth that all lizards have legs. (Dan probably knew this).

It be interesting to see the expression patterns of HoxC6 and HoxC8 genes are in legless lizards......it also be interesting to look at the DNA sequence homology of these genes and those of boids.

How legless are legless lizards too? DO these have vestiges of a pelvic griddle and femur?

---

Let's not forget scale orientation. :D Legless lizard scales are in a circular pattern.

I haven't had a chance to read the article but I'm going to!! And to confuse you all ... I'm a Christian AND I believe in evolution. ;)

An interesting new hypothesis seems to group snakes with certain types of lizard rather than as a sister clade to all the lizards:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toxicofera

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tigerlily

I haven't had a chance to read the article but I'm going to!! And to confuse you all ... I'm a Christian AND I believe in evolution. ;)

---

Company you share with the original poster's namesake - Mendel was after all a Catholic abbott and scientist who almost certainly believed in evolution.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kurgan

Company you share with the original poster's namesake - Mendel was after all a Catholic abbott and scientist who almost certainly believed in evolution.

---

Good point about my BP.net namesake!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mendel's Balls

The conjunction "and" is key.

I'd also add an "and"

and no external ear openings....

From Melissa Kapplan's page: "Some lizards, including the European legless lizard, California's legless lizard, and the Eastern glass snake (so called because of its defensive tail dropping tendencies) and slender legless lizards, are all lizards who have no legs, living lifestyles that make them unnecessary. They do have external ear openings and moveable eyelids like other lizards. Snakes have neither external ear openings nor moveable eyelids."


[/font]

---

OFF TOPIC
FWI, that site might not be the best place to get info in the future,especially for herp care ;). Melissa is frowned upon in this hobby by alot of people.

Ok, just a quick tip. ;)

I love the original Mendel, and enjoy the posts of this one as well!!


~mike

well, then here's an interesting read....

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/proj...ticanview.html

Interesting thread so far.... But what are these points you're talking about and how do you gain/lose them? Do I have any? How do I know how many someone has?

Mark

:2cent:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bpkid

OFF TOPIC
FWI, that site might not be the best place to get info in the future,especially for herp care ;). Melissa is frowned upon in this hobby by alot of people.

Ok, just a quick tip. ;)

---

No problem....but why? maybe I Should start another thread?