Georgia – Snakes don’t have legs or arms, although they do have the ability in their DNA to develop them, a new study suggests. The discovery was made at the University of Georgia.
If snakes don’t grow limbs, what’s the point of having this genetic information? Researchers found that the gene is crucial for developing the snake’s phalluses while they are on the embryonic stage. Eventually, this phallic structure becomes a penis or a clitoris, according to the study published in the journal Developmental Cell.
These genes that normally should do the work of growing limbs are also used for growing phalluses. There are enhancers on the DNA that control the expression of the gene in these structures and were found both on limbs development of other lizards and also in the phallic structures of the snake.
Doug Menke, lead author of the study, said that, “We’ve really been thinking of these as limb enhancers, but more broadly, these genetic components are actually also participating in development and driving gene expression in other body tissues,” according to Tech Science.
Scientists say that the process behind the genes and how they work is very complex: “Does each gene have a different enhancer for each place and time in development, or are some enhancers read again and again?” asks Kim Cooper, a biologist from UC San, specialist in the subject.
These genetic segments were found by the researchers primarily through studies in mice, looking for a better way to explain how the limb enhancers were involved in the evolution of other types of limbs. They also examined anole lizards (limbed reptiles) and found the same enhancers.
“There have been many millions of snake generations since they evolved a legless body, and we would generally expect the DNA associated with limb development to fade away or mutate to do another job, but that doesn’t seem to have happened,” Menke added.
Researchers say that mice and other lizards used the genetic information to develop extremities, as the snake used the enhancer in their genitalia. They concluded that the proper name for this DNA regions are “appendage enhancers”, and that snakes retained this information with a purpose.
They studied the genomes of three snake species: boa constrictor, Burmese python, and the king cobra. Since a couple of years ago the genome sequences of the snakes have been available, more research like this is in order to be made. Researchers have a long way ahead investigating the role of DNA enhancers in the particular development of different genital shapes in nature.
Source: Discovery News
Is this DNA precursors to a future walking snake? Or are they remnants of a formerly walking snake, as indicated by Scriptures? This is a matter of belief, for you to decide. While it cannot be immediately proven either way, it can be understood as evidence that corroborates the Biblical story.
Actually, snakes evolved from reptiles with legs. Spend two minutes on Google and you can find a dozen articles describing the 150M year process to what we see today.
Can you prove what you say is true?
I’ve spent nearly a lifetime studying evolution and creation. There are too many things in evolutionary theory that don’t add up.
Actually, I worked in a molecular genetics lab and I have seen the mechanisms of evolution up close and personal. When people say things “don’t add up,” this means they have no better explanation.
We know that the biosphere has changed almost continually over the billions of years life has been on earth, with most of the change occurring in the last billion accelerating and collapsing during and after five great extinctions. How do you explain the changes in the biosphere without evolution? Do you have a working theory? If so, please publish and collect your Nobel prize.
All animals alive today have genetic atavisms. I cited an example down below, but I will repeat it. When chicken embryos are exposed to activation proteins from grafted mouse cells, they grow teeth. All birds have the inactive genes for fully formed reptilian teeth. Why is this true? The answer is simple – birds evolved from other reptiles.
On occasion, snakes are born with atavistic limbs. This is impossible unless they carry the inactive DNA for limbs.
I tried to post a link, but the moderators rejected it. There are many good sites on the web that will layout the evolution of snakes. I would like to suggest you read a few books. You can’t learn years of evolutionary biology in an internet post.
I actually have a MS in biological systems engineering, and I’ve made a hobby of studying many aspects of evolution not immediately related to my specific field (including the study of books and other media), so I’m not exactly as uneducated in this field as you seem to think.
I can explain biosphere changes without evolution, and the working theory behind it is not new. So it’s not that I don’t have a better explanation. However, it is not currently provable, so I will not be getting any nobel prizes.
You have posted evidence that supports your claim. I applaud your dedication, and the amount of study you’ve done. But evidence is not proof. Nor is it always perfectly interpreted. If you want to believe evolutionary development is the best explanation for diversity, by all means, go right ahead. But recognize that such a conclusion is a belief, not necessarily a truth. Just as I believe that evolution has too many holes to fully explain how this world developed, is a belief, not necessarily a truth.
I would also encourage you to look at what assumptions you’re making, and how valid they are (age of earth, or 5 extinction events, for example – how do you prove it? Can you?). Some may be valid, others less so. Evidence is not proof, and can be understood in multiple ways. How confident are you that all the evidence is properly understood? Is there sufficient data to make a conclusion? What if new technology or information that contradicts the conclusion is found? How sure are you that the nature of academia and scientific fields haven’t been skewed or given preference to certain conclusions? Are the conclusions really unbiased if they are based off assumptions?
To drive the point a little further, you indicated that under the right conditions, chickens can grow teeth. You say without qualification, that this must mean birds evolved from reptiles. That conclusion is based off of a lot of assumptions. From a purely scientific viewpoint, we should only conclude that chicken have DNA in their genetics that can cause the growth of teeth. That’s it. To say that’s because they evolved from reptiles is an assumption and speculation, because science has never actually observed that evolutionary process take place. Yes, I know we have fossils of what we think are reptiles with feathers, but we have no observations of the changes actually occuring, and we cannot conclusively say whether feathered reptiles are direct ancestors of modern birds, or if they were a unique species with similarities to both birds and reptiles that has since died out. Evidence would seem to indicate that the later is potentially more accurate, as it is not unusual for us to see species go extinct, but it’s very unusual for us to see a new one emerge, especially outside of a lab where a scientist wasn’t controlling conditions to drive results.
Knowledge is knowing how little you know.
Ummm right…. your little rant here has completely discredited any science education you might have had. You are falling into the fallacy of completeness. Let me show by example. We know based on evidence that the our sun is a second or third generation star. We don’t know what came before, but based on age, physics, etc., we can confirm this hypothesis. The fallacy of completeness would require a Euclidean proof from the big bang to now in order make the claim that the sun is not one of the original stars in our universe. You are applying the same fallacy to evolution.
All science with the exception of mathematical proofs and similar exercises in logic is subject to refutation. Provide better evidence, and you can refute evolution. The theory itself has been modified significantly since Darwin penned his books. DNA wasn’t discovered until the 20th century. We have seen more recent extensions such as neutrality theory, which simply says that not all genetic change is selective. A more controversial modification is epigenetics, which has been grossly exaggerated by people looking to justify intelligent design.
You are confusing empirical hypotheses with justification for the theory. Knowing the full path for every species is not a requirement for saying evolution is true. This is the fallacy of completeness. We don’t know the exact path for each species, and these are subject to continual correction based on better evidence, which does *not* contradict the theory.
Evolution is active today. Mutation and selection are the reasons we have drug resistant bacteria, chemical resistant weeds, and different strains of the flu year to year. The one thing common to DNA across all life is that it changes. Sexual reproduction is our most basic form of mix and match genetics. The Lenski experiments at MSU are a perfect example of how 12 identical samples of E. Coli. can evolve into 12 distinct subspecies under identical circumstances.
With respect to the example I gave, atavisms are evidence of what animals came from. It just one piece of the puzzle for evolutionary biology. When you include all of the evidence, the likelihood of modern evolutionary biology being wrong in its majority is very very low.
Animals in transition are visible today. For example, some species of east African skinks now give birth using mammalian placental structures, completely giving up egg laying. We now have a new evolutionary path of mammalian traits. Similarly, the monotremes are morphologically closer to reptiles than they are other mammals, but the still count since they have fur, they are warm blooded, and they produce milk.
You are attacking fossils or one piece of evidence without looking at the entire picture. Fossils are just one form of support for evolution. There are many other sets of evidence that are much more convincing.
Ahh….
So I’m “ranting”, not discussing, and my scientific education is both dubious and meaningless. Thanks for that.
You say “we know by based on evidence”, and I say we can only “think based on evidence”, because to make the leap to “know” is a leap of faith that science has little room for.
But it makes little difference, because I can see the entrenched ideologies here, and recognize there is no further point to continuing a discussion with you.
When you responded with this:
“But recognize that such a conclusion is a belief, not necessarily a truth. Just as I believe that evolution has too many holes to fully explain how this world developed, is a belief, not necessarily a truth.”
It is obvious you do not understand the difference between a fact or observation, a theory, a hypothesis, and a mathematical proof. By misusing the words “belief” and “truth,” you have disqualified yourself from any meaningful discussion around a scientific theory.
If things were even close to as uncertain as you belief, evolution would be at best hypothesis. Since you don’t recognize this or the nature of empirical inquiry, you don’t understand how science works.
Thank you for your “respectful” reply. Your statements and your respectful attitude of care have convinced me everything I say is wrong, my education was an expensive waste of time, that I’m completely inept and am incapable of offering any valuable insights, and that your views are far superior to mine because you have all the answers and I have none. I should bask in the glory of your wisdom like a good little peon.
[rolls eyes]
You’re just as bad as bgrnathan. You’re both disrespectful and militant in your attempts to convince people to to your side. You assume far too much, both about science, and about what I personally do and do not understand. If your willingness to make assumptions is the kind of “science” I can expect from you, its no wonder you don’t understand the difference between “fact” and “truth”, and none of what you’re trying to convince me of no longer has any weight whatsoever.
by Babu G. Ranganathan
(B.A. Bible/Biology)
THE BIBLE TEACHES THAT SNAKES ONCE HAD LEGS
The Bible teaches in Genesis 3:14 that the serpent (snake) was a member of the cattle family before it was cursed and made to crawl in the ground. So, the Bible implies that snakes, indeed, once had legs.
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only micro-evolution, or evolution within biological “kinds,” is genetically possible (such as the varieties of dogs, cats, horses, cows, etc.), but not macro-evolution, or evolution across biological “kinds,” (such as from sea sponge to human). All real evolution in nature is simply the expression, over time, of already existing genes or variations of already existing genes. For example, we have breeds of dogs today that we didn’t have a few hundred years ago. The genes for these breeds had always existed in the dog population but never had opportunity before to be expressed. Only limited evolution or adaptation, variations of already existing genes and traits, is possible.
The genes (chemical instructions or code) must first exist or otherwise the evolution cannot occur. Genes instruct the body to build our tissues and organs. Nature is mindless and has no ability to design and program entirely new genes for entirely new traits. Nature can only work with the genetic ability already existing in species. Nature cannot perform the genetic engineering necessary to increase that genetic ability.
Many people have wrong ideas of how evolution is supposed to work. Physical traits and characteristics are determined and passed on by genes – not by what happens to our body parts. For example, if a woman were to lose her finger this wouldn’t affect how many fingers her baby will have. Changing the color and texture of your hair will not affect the color and texture of your children’s hair. So, even if an ape’s muscles and bones changed so that it could walk upright it still would not be able to pass on this trait to its offspring. Only changes or mutations that occur in the genetic code of reproductive cells (i.e. sperm and egg) can be passed on to offspring.
Modern evolutionists believe and hope that over, supposedly, millions of years, random genetic mutations in the genes of reproductive cells caused by environmental radiation will generate entirely new genes. This is total blind and irrational faith on the part of evolutionists. It’s much like believing that randomly changing the sequence of letters in a romance novel, over millions of years, will turn it into a book on astronomy! That’s the kind of blind faith macro-evolutionists have.
When evolutionary scientists teach that random genetic mutations in species over, supposedly, millions of years caused by random environmental agents such as radiation, produced entirely new genes (i.e. genetic code or genetic information) leading to entirely new forms of life, they are not teaching science but simply a faith, a belief!
Mutations are accidents in the genetic, are mostly harmful, and have no capability of producing greater complexity in the code. Even if a good accident occurred, for every good one there would be hundreds of harmful ones with the net result, over time, being harmful, even lethal, to the species. At best, mutations only produce further variations within a natural species. Even so, mutations are not the best explanation for variations within a natural species.
Since it is not rational to believe that genetic information, or any form of information, can arise by chance, it is totally rational to believe that God (the Supreme Genetic Engineer) placed within all natural species, in the beginning, with all of the recessive and dominant genes that produced all of the intra-species variations in nature.
If life on earth had really existed for millions of years, all species would have become extinct by now due to the colossal number of accumulated mutations over time (please read the author’s popular Internet article, ARE FOSSILS REALLY MILLIONS OF YEARS OLD?).
What about natural selection? Natural selection doesn’t produce biological traits or variations. It can only “select” from biological variations that are possible and which have survival value. The term “natural selection” is a figure of speech. Nature doesn’t do any conscious selecting. If a variation occurs in a species (i.e. change in skin color) that helps the species survive then that survival is called being “selected.” That’s all it is. Natural selection is a passive process in nature, not a creative process. The real issue is what biological variations are possible, not natural selection.
How could species have survived if their vital tissues, organs, reproductive systems, etc. were still evolving? A partially evolved trait or organ that is not complete and fully functioning from the start would be a liability to a species, not a survival asset. Plants and animals in the process of macro-evolution would be unfit for survival. For example, “if a leg of a reptile were to evolve (over supposedly millions of years) into a wing of a bird, it would become a bad leg long before it became a good wing” (Dr. Walt Brown, scientist and creationist). Survival of the fittest actually would have prevented evolution across biological kinds! Read my Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! (2nd Edition).
All species of plants and animals in the fossil record are found complete, fully-formed, and fully functional. This is powerful evidence that species did not come into existence gradually by any macro-evolutionary process but, rather, came into existence as complete and ready-to-go from the very beginning, which is possible only by special creation.
All the fossils that have been used to support human evolution have been found to be either hoaxes, non-human, or human, but not non-human and human (i.e. Neanderthal Man was discovered later to be fully human). Textbooks and museums still continue to display examples and illustrations supporting human evolution which most evolutionists have rejected and no longer support. Many diagrams of ape-man creatures over the years were reconstructed according to evolutionary interpretations from disputable bones that have now been discredited but still being taught in school textbooks.
What about genetic and biological similarities between species? Genetic information, like other forms of information, cannot happen by chance, so it is more logical to believe that genetic and biological similarities between all forms of life are due to a common Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes. It doesn’t mean all forms of life are biologically related! Only genetic similarities within a natural species proves relationship because it’s only within a natural species that members can interbreed and reproduce
Also, so-called “Junk DNA” isn’t junk. These so-called “non-coding” segments of DNA have recently been found to be vital in regulating gene expression (i.e. when, where, and how genes are expressed, so they’re not “junk”). Read my popular Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Visit my latest Internet site: THE SCIENCE SUPPORTING CREATION
I discuss: Punctuated Equilibria, “Junk DNA,” genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, dinosaur “feathers,” the genetic and biological similarities between various species, etc., etc.
Sincerely,
Babu G. Ranganathan*
(B.A. theology/biology)
Author of popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS
*I have had the privilege of being recognized in the 24th edition of Marquis “Who’s Who In The East” for my writings on religion and science. I have given successful lectures refuting macroevolution (with question and answer period afterward) before evolutionist science faculty and students at various colleges/universities.
You are completely misrepresenting evolution. I could spend hours deconstructing the errors in your post.
If you would like to see mutation at work, then ask yourself why we have drug resistant bacteria or new strains of the flu every year or so or chemical resistant weeds.
If you would like to an experiment that brilliantly illustrates random mutation and selection, look up Lenski’s long running experiment with E. coli at Michigan State University. Twelve samples were taken from a genetically identical strain of E. coli. Over the years, these strains have diverged mutating in different ways under identical conditions. All strains are viable, and change over time developing new features.
You can see animals in transition in the wild. The most interesting recent examples are different species of East African Skinks that have stopped laying eggs, and instead have mammalian style placentas and give birth to live young. Clearly, this mutation is showing the independent development of mammalian traits from reptiles. Similarly, the monotremes, which are mammals that lay eggs, have an internal morphology closer to reptiles than mammalians, yet they have enough mammalian features to be considered mammals.
The only thing constant about life is change.