» Site Navigation
0 members and 3,148 guests
No Members online
Most users ever online was 6,337, 01-24-2020 at 04:30 AM.
» Today's Birthdays
» Stats
Members: 75,114
Threads: 248,555
Posts: 2,568,845
Top Poster: JLC (31,651)
|
-
BPnet Veteran
67 Million Year Old Snake Fossil Found
Found this article on wired.com, thought I'd share. Pretty amazing!! Check it out
67 Million-Year-Old Snake Fossil Found Eating Baby Dinosaur
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/20...intcid=postnav
-
The Following User Says Thank You to Dianna For This Useful Post:
-
Re: 67 Million Year Old Snake Fossil Found
Isn't that funny!! It doesn't have any hind legs!?!? Oh yeah evolutionists, I went there.
-
-
BPnet Veteran
Re: 67 Million Year Old Snake Fossil Found
Originally Posted by twistedtails
Isn't that funny!! It doesn't have any hind legs!?!? Oh yeah evolutionists, I went there.
Not exactly sure what point was trying to be made here.
Interesting though I never really think of snakes as being around at the time of the dinos I mean I knew they were but you don't hear of many jurassic period lessons including snakes. I guess they are easily over looked when you have giant iguanas running around lol. Cool article.
-
-
Registered User
Re: 67 Million Year Old Snake Fossil Found
Originally Posted by twistedtails
Isn't that funny!! It doesn't have any hind legs!?!? Oh yeah evolutionists, I went there.
Well you better bring yourself back just kidding, but they did say "S. indicus lacked jaw joints that allowed it to open its mouth incredibly wide" and they never said the snake didn't have hind legs.
Last edited by DarkComeSoon; 03-03-2010 at 08:26 PM.
0.1 Delilah - Ball Python
1.0 Silas - Colombian Red Tail Boa
1.0 Drew - Ball Python
0.1 Benny - Colombian Red Tail Boa
0.1 Zooey RIP - Ball Python
-
-
BPnet Veteran
Re: 67 Million Year Old Snake Fossil Found
Not to be a stickler, but...
...just because they found a 67 million-year-old fossil of a snake coiled around dinosaur eggs (and a hatchling) does not mean it ate them.
I mean, it might be considered circumstantial evidence that it was eating them, but not actual evidence.
Also, I wonder how the "non-scientific community" reconciles the whole "67 million-year-old fossil" thing.
BrandonsBalls
bpherp.com - Breeder of ball python morphs & genetic mutations
-
-
Re: 67 Million Year Old Snake Fossil Found
Why else was it sitting in a nest of hatching eggs? Of course it was eating them. If you read, it also says they found other snakes in the area. The scenario they painted is very plausible.
I don't quite understand the comment about hind legs...if it had legs, it wouldn't be a snake just yet. It's a very primitive snake, though, without the jaw adaptations of modern snakes. Snakes first differentiated from lizards about 100 million years ago--nevertheless, that makes them the youngest suborder of squamate reptiles. That's actually pretty young, because placental mammals evolved 125 million years ago or so. So they haven't been around as long as live-bearing mammals.
The first dinosaurs showed up 240 million years ago, and the first true mammals about 200 million years ago. Prior to that, you had the pseudo-suchids--land-going crocs that may have been warm-blooded. These were the precursors to dinosaurs. The precursors to mammals were the proto-mammals, a group of possibly warm-blooded and furred reptiles with differentiated teeth.
The whole warm-blooded and cold-blooded issue isn't nearly as black and white as folks used to think it was--modern crodocilians show some ability to generate body heat internally, while some modern mammals have very POOR thermoregulation (hedgehogs). So, it's likely that different species had varying degrees of warm-bloodedness, regardless of whether they were mammalian or dinosaurian. Which has nothing to do with snakes, I realize, but I just love paleontology. It puts things into perspective.
-
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
-
Forum Rules
|