|
11-14 of 14 messages
|
Previous
Page 2 of 2
|
|
RE: A question on evolution (or devolution)
|
Reply
|
|
by theemojohnm on February 21, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
First off, GREAT post Fred, and GREAT to see you able to post! Still relying on dial-up? LOL...
I have been staying out of town for the past month, and have been without internet access entirely. I am only here until tomorrow evening, but figured I would chime in on this topic, because I found this one very intriguing, and I love these kinds of debates.
I will second Fred and Josh's posts. I completely agree that many have a "distorted" idea of what evolution really is. "Evolution has no direction" is especially true. Generally, most believe that rattlesnakes are "more evolved" and large constrictor more "primitive" (just an example), but who is to say? Certainly it appears to many that rattlesnakes (just one example), have biological advantages over what many consider "primitive" snakes, like the constrictors.
Something as complex as a venom delivery system obviously took more generations than we are able to comprehend to "evolve", and I doubt that we ever will fully be able to accurately say.
This reminds me a bit of a topic I posted months back, regarding venoms aid in digestion, and the metabolism of different families of serpent.
Personally, I see our sun burning out, and life as we know it ceasing to exist before any of our known venomous genera (or families) "devolve" or "evolve" in a direction towards to loss of venom and/or venom-delivery systems.
This is one of those topics that really cannot be debated much, as there is just too much that is still unknown about how these physical traits got there in the first place. We still have huge populations of many species of what some consider "primitive", non-venomous species, thriving in the wild.
Certainly, in a captive situation, any "natural selection" or "evolution" observations are out.
The only thing that truly makes me wonder is "venom potency". The only way I think this may take place is based on the diet of the animal. There are reports of several American pit-viper species utilizing "neurotoxin" compound in there venom when young. Some believe this is because these rattlers feed primarily on other retiles and amphibians small lizards, frog, etc.), and eventually start to feed on rodents and birds when there size increases. Poison Dart frogs come to mind for some reason, along with several marine invertebrates. While Poison dart frogs are poisonous, NOT venomous, diet of the animals the biggest factor.
Perhaps if the diet of American Southwestern pit-vipers changed, so too would the venom compounds utilized by the animals. Of course, a juvi rattler using different venom compounds to feed on other reptiles, and adapting more "hemotoxic" compounds for rodents after several years of growth is NOT evolution. It is, in a sense, a metamorphosis, as Fred stated.
Many have you have probably read this article, but for those who have not, I found this one to be especially interesting, and I feel it has some relevance to this topic.
http://www.bangor.ac.uk/%7Ebss166/Publications/2004_Assembling_an_Arsenal_MBE.pdf
Great Topic Guys!
Take Care,
-John Mendrola.
|
| |
|
RE: A question on evolution (or devolution)
|
Reply
|
|
by FSB on February 25, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Hi John.... glad to see you back online again (though working for a nature center can't be all that bad). No, I'm using the library computers until they run me off. I find it helps keep me from spending TOO much dang time on the internet, so it's good. I have to make wise choices about the use of my time (such as posting to this forum!!). The Amherst County library is very cool, though. They even have a large male veiled chameleon as a mascot (I couldn't believe it the first time I walked in... most libraries are so stodgy about such things). He's well-cared for and housed and seems pretty happy here... the staff dotes on him. They also have a collection of model WWII aircraft hanging from the ceiling and a coffee cart, so I come here to have coffee every morning and do my computer stuff. Plus, you can check out DVDs for a whole week. Wait a minute.... I guess this was about evolution and such.... oh well. They do have a good selection of books on the topic as well. The irony is that most people who decry Darwin and evolution on religious grounds do not realize that Darwin, like most people of his age, was a devoutly religious man who saw his studies of the natural world as a means of becoming closer to God and better understanding His works. I believe he was more of a prophet than anything else, and like most prophets, has been thoroughly scourged, misunderstood and mistreated.
|
| |
|
RE: A question on evolution (or devolution)
|
Reply
|
|
by earthguy on February 26, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Darwin, like most people of his age, was a devoutly religious man who saw his studies of the natural world as a means of becoming closer to God and better understanding His works"
Well that is likely true to a degree (in fact Darwin was studying for the ministry right up until his voyage on HMS beagle)...but that is not the whole story. Darwin was an interesting man! He certainly struggled with the relegious implications of his finding, especially what his wife (who was a DEVOUT Christian) would think. From what I have read, however, Darwin fell into a deep depression and disavowed God after his favorite child died. He simply didn't understand how a just and loving God could 'take' the life of his precious child. I'm not defending him, mind you. Just telling another tidbit of the story. Incidently I would encourage anyone interested in this topic to read the LAST paragraph of The Origin of Species> You should actually read the whole thing...but the last paragraph is a very revealing insight, I think, into Charles Darwin's psyche.
|
| |
|
Email Subscription
You are not subscribed to this topic.
Subscribe!
My Subscriptions
Subscriptions Help
Check our help page for help using
, or send questions, comments, or suggestions to the
Manager.
|
