Evolution and venomous snakes: Diet distinguishes look-alikes on two continents

On opposite sides of the globe over millions of years, the snakes of North America and Australia independently evolved similar body types that helped them move and capture prey more efficiently. Snakes on both continents include stout-bodied, highly camouflaged ambush predators, such as rattlesnakes in North America and death adders in Australia. There are slender, fast-moving foragers on both continents, as well as small burrowing snakes. This independent evolution of similar body forms in response to analogous ecological conditions is a striking example of a phenomenon called convergence.



More...

That is Adaptation, it is "A change by which an organism or species becomes better suited to its environment," but even after adapting, the organism remains the same thing it originally was. Adaptation is reversible, so long as the gene pool remains diverse. Example: The finch gene pool actually contains a large variety of beak styles. In an area of limited food resources, a particular beak style, most suited to that food source becomes dominant, but the bird is still a finch. If other food becomes available, other beak styles will arise, especially if access to a general gene pool of finches remains available.

Evolution, however, claims that changes accumulate to the point that an organism is no longer the same species. And that the changes become so great that breeding with organisms of the former type is no longer possible; that is, the change is not reversible.

There is lots of evidence of adaptation. There is no evidence of evolution.

Gotta love it when someone apparently plagiarizes from a religious website to argue against evolution. In my view of the online forum world, few things are lower than a plagiarist.

"...to the last, I grapple with thee; from hell's heart, I stab at thee; for hate's sake, I spit my last breath at thee"

so what do you call that ? Oh wait, because you put two little lines in front and in back of what you've copied from Moby Dick that makes it ok? well go back and read what I "plagiarized" I did modify what was written slightly. I highly doubt a religious website would call it plagiarizing. Its called fact, I guess if I use quotes from the bible on here that would be plagiaring also. Get a life. And before you go attacking me because you are atheist. Look up what evolution is even suppose to mean. I think it was explained more clearly in my posting above... These snakes didn't evolve into anything outside of a snake. It adapted. Also, what website did you pull your pretty user picture from? Hypocrite.

Keep grasping at invisible straws (which could easily be seen as a metaphor for your whole belief system, but that's neither here nor there). Having acknowledged via the use of quotation marks that the words aren't my own, yes, that makes it OK. Thanks for illustrating that you clearly grasp the concept - despite the lame rationalization - yet still chose to present the words as if they were your own.

"let he who is without sin, cast the first stone" John 8:7, You probably never heard of that before.

If you want to believe you are smarter then me, thats fine, You may be. But a fact is a fact and....

A snake is a Snake is a snake.


I am not going to get into a piss match with you over this, facts are facts, snakes are snakes.

I am actually on this forum contributing and conducting business.... What are you doing on here?

Based on your profile, you look like a troll (no pun intended.)

"Fangthane
Not interested in PMs, Friend Requests, or whatever else may have brought you to my profile. Take it elsewhere."

Just remember... A snake is a Snake

Kevin, I think acknowledging authorship with quotes is very important. The author's words are his property, and should not be passed off as your own.
But a discussion of adaptation/evolution could be interesting, let's not derail it.

I do agree with that Lucille, He also probably should have referenced where he got his Moby Dick quote from. Although I am under the impression its not me using that fact based paragraph that upsets fang-whatever. Its that he is a atheist and does not believe in creation and does not like me upsetting the "waves" of evolution.

I really do not want to get into this and incur fractions for one reason or another, as I am using this site for business, though I admit it could get pretty interesting!...

Kevin,
I think Dan is smart and interesting. You probably are too.
Sometimes things get off on the wrong foot.

Also, If I have truly offended Dan, and he thinks I am that low of a person, or if I have offended anyone else by my posting. I apologize. I will be the first to admit I am not the brightest, smartest, most athletic, most scientific, most educated, I am just another average person. I made a very simple, common mistake. I guess I value my faith more then I value my education.

Thanks Lucille. I agree