Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Science

Four-legged Snake Fossil Stuns Scientists, Ignites Controversy 153

Posted by Soulskill from the i-have-had-it-with-these-multi-legged-snakes-on-this-multi-legged-plane dept.
sciencehabit writes: Scientists have described what they say is the first known fossil of a four-legged snake. The limbs of the 120-or-so-million-year-old, 20-centimeter-long creature are remarkably well preserved and end with five slender digits that appear to have been functional (abstract). Thought to have come from Brazil, the fossil would be one of the earliest snakes found, suggesting that the group evolved from terrestrial precursors in Gondwana, the southern remnant of the supercontinent Pangaea. But although the creature's overall body plan—and indeed, many of its individual anatomical features—is snakelike, some researchers aren't so sure that it is a part of the snake family tree.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Four-legged Snake Fossil Stuns Scientists, Ignites Controversy More

Four-legged Snake Fossil Stuns Scientists, Ignites Controversy

Comments Filter:

  • Genesis! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Geoffrey.landis ( 926948 ) on Friday July 24, 2015 @09:43AM (#50174367) Homepage

    The biblical literalists are going to love this one.

    • And the snake oil salesmen in the Bible Belt.
    • Comment removed based on user account deletion

      • Re:Genesis! (Score:4, Interesting)

        by ilguido ( 1704434 ) on Friday July 24, 2015 @10:32AM (#50174719)

        I don't see any reason why this is "stunning" or a big controversy. It's just a new fossil and they'll argue a bit on where it goes into the taxonomy tree... happens all the time.

        The fact is that, as always, those who found it are basically screaming "sensational discovery, mystery XYZ is finally solved", while other scientist are more cautious. It's the old theme of "sensationalism versus business as usual", dangerously close to the stance of attention whores.

        Having read the article, I think it's more likely that those weak limbs were used for tree climbing than for grabbing preys and probably this is not a snake but a specimen from some extinct group.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by pr0nbot ( 313417 )

          I too am remaining cautious, waiting till they find the other one Noah saved before declaring the mystery solved.

        • The fact is that, as always, those who found it are basically screaming "sensational discovery, mystery XYZ is finally solved", while other scientist are more cautious. It's the old theme of "sensationalism versus business as usual", dangerously close to the stance of attention whores.

          "Business as usual" is competition over limited funding, and that means marketing your accomplishments to show you can deliver results. Let's not look down on attention whores when We The People are the johns.

        • and probably this is not a snake but a specimen from some extinct group.

          One of the specific characteristics that they use to deduce that this is more closely related to modern snakes than to an other group is that the body (between the pelvic and pectoral girdles) is considerably elongated compared to other vertebrates. This lengthening is achieved by increasing the number of vertebrae and ribs, not by lengthening the vertebrae (which is the strategy that giraffes use, for example). There is also a hint (th

      • Snake taxonomy isn't really a tree. It's more of an overgrown hedge, full of thorns. This will be tidied up as the genetic comparisons are processed, but it's not a high-priority area of research.

      • The stunning part is that a lot of scientists had conjectured that snakes evolved from aquatic precursors, whereas this specimen is clearly land based.

      • The controversy isn't about the fossil ; it's about the origin of the fossil.

        The lithology of the encasing rock and age of the specimen (the report I had didn't go into details ; I'd assume micropalaeontology - it usually is) suggests that the specimen came from the Crato formation of Brazil. But Brazil has had a blanket ban on export of fossils since the 1940s. So, how did the fossil get to appear in a small museum in southern Germany? (By coincidence, I've actually been to that museum.)

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      The biblical literalists are going to love this one.

      Why? Doesn't seem to be a problem for that perspective to me...

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Option 1 (the sarcastic "love"):
        This is an example of a transitional species the existence of which evolutionary theory predicted before it was discovered to exist (something "creationists" have been challenging scientists to produce) point awarded to Science.

        Option 2 (the literal "love"):
        This is clearly the actual snake that tempted Eve and got all snakes' leg privileges revoked by God, therefore it's moral to hate gay people or something.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      If you read TFA there is no mention of Creationists or any other religious reference. The "controversy" is over the origin of the fossil and "whether this is actually a snake"

      But don't let that stop you from getting your Christian Hate on.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Anonymous Coward

        "Christianity" in the US is nothing but a cult that rejects science, worships guns and war and is an anti-sex death cult.

        They are also under the delusion that capitalism is part of their religion and falls under their religious beliefs.

        Christianity, along with all religions, should be hated.

        A demon comes running to the Devil in a panic.

        The Devil asks, "What's wrong demon?!"

        The demon responds, "There is someone up there speaking the truth! We'll be out of business!"

        The Devil laughs. "Silly demon! They'll

        • "Christianity" in the US is nothing but a cult that rejects science, worships guns and war and is an anti-sex death cult.

          Don't know which "christians" you know...but that's certainly not true.

    • The biblical literalists are going to love this one.

      Aside from the 120 million year old part...

    • Pfft. God put those bones in the ground 6,000 years ago to test our faith, duh.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by PRMan ( 959735 )
        Actually, the creationist position would be that the dragon most likely died during the flood about 4,400 years ago.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by PRMan ( 959735 )
      It's a dragon. Next...

  • 4 Legged Snake (Score:5, Funny)

    by StrangeBrew ( 769203 ) on Friday July 24, 2015 @09:43AM (#50174373)
    The snake also recently stated that POW's are exempt from War Hero status.
    • But did it have any opinions on the idea that love can bloom on the battlefield?
    • Trump has four legs?
      • Of course. He's a lizard, after all. And this is why people vote for a lizard - because if they don't, the wrong lizard might get elected.
      • Yes, yes he does. You are aware that 'number of legs' is synonymous to 'number of appendages' when talking about broad anatomical classification of creatures, right? Even the riddle of the Sphinx suggests that millennia old cultures were able to grasp this concept.
        • So a chicken also has four legs. Got it.
          • Yes, and unless you're a creationist, you'll be able to research the evolution of the modern wing from the feathered, clawed, four legged body of its ancestors.

      • I'm pretty sure his hair once did.

  • "Ignites Controversy" . . . ? (Score:5, Funny)

    by PolygamousRanchKid ( 1290638 ) on Friday July 24, 2015 @09:56AM (#50174469)

    So it could breathe fire, as well? It sounds like they have not found a snake, but a fire-breathing dragon!

  • Surprised it wasn't classified as a skink though I'm more of a mammal enthusiast than a reptile one. Either way I'm curious if 20cm is its full grown size or if it is a baby dragon.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Jesrad ( 716567 )

      And I'm not surprised, considering how full of holes and lapses taxonomy is. It's pretty much a pseudoscience as it stands so far. We've been trying to put every critter into a single, discrete box called "species" and arranging those in ways that simply won't fit with the facts. Which order do protoctists really belong to ? Are euglenids plant or animal ? Are myxomycetes fungus or protoctists ? What about racoon dogs, cynogales, etc. ?

      Phylogenetic "trees" should really be loose hypergraphs with lots and lo

  • Need to know if it can talk!

  • It's the missing slink! (Score:5, Funny)

    by rgbatduke ( 1231380 ) <rgb@@@phy...duke...edu> on Friday July 24, 2015 @10:19AM (#50174619) Homepage

    Sorry, I had to do that one.

  • Four-legged Snake Fossil Interests Scientists, Ignites Scientific Interest

    FTFY.

  • I glanced through the above story about Hillary and misread the title of this story as "Four legged Senate fossil..." but then I remembered that Stromberg Thurmond died a few years back.
  • On the surface it appears they are questioning cross-specie evolution and how amino acids starting forming proteins (presumably without any RNA / DNA). But it is really an argument toward theocracy and away from secular society. Good luck with that. One of their arguments again cross-specie evolution is the lack of transitional fossils. This may be determined to be such a fossil. I am no scientist, but every theory should be questioned, it is science.

    • Most of their arguments are variations on a very simple form.
      1. I have identified an aspect of the evolutionary model which I find difficult to accept.
      2. Therefore God made all life six thousand years ago.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by PRMan ( 959735 )

        Nice try. Thanks for playing. But instead of straw men that they don't actually believe in, here is their own statement of their top 10 beliefs about creation:

        https://answersingenesis.org/evidence-for-creation/the-10-best-evidences-from-science-that-confirm-a-young-earth/ [answersingenesis.org]

        • Every one of which is just a more specific case of the general outline I gave above. I've heard them all before - they all involve some high-school science which, interpreted simplistically, seems to suggest a young earth. The carbon dating of diamonds or oil, for example. If you're only working with high-school physics, that seems a certain proof of a young earth - because at that level you only need be concerned with carbon isotopes, but back in the complexities of the real world carbon dating for very ol

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by PRMan ( 959735 )

      In that case, you should be happy that creationists are questioning everything. In fact, it sounds like you would favor any repeatable scientific experiments they can perform should be taught in school.

      • A friend of mine is a physics professor. He is not a Creationist (doesn't believe in 4-10k year old earth). But he is an intelligent design proponent (he's not sure about cross-phyla evolution). He thinks there might be an important ingredient we are not aware of that got the whole thing started. Like an extra-terrestrial race like some Sumerian texts imply. I listen to all these ideas. I really don't think there is an alternative to the general evolutionary theory. But sure, pieces of it might be pr

  • Par for the course (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    This is Slashdot. Science is only questionable when it agrees with the bible.

    Genesis 3:4, for those wondering what the sequence specifics are that are the current cause for rejecting science, if necessary.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by PRMan ( 959735 )

      Science is questionable when the science actually proves a young earth instead of an old one.

      Science is questionable when political votes are taken to decide things like the death of the dinosaurs or the Oort Cloud, instead of additional evidence.

      Science is questionable when people's repeatable experiments are excluded from the conversation because of who they are rather than the repeatability and quality of the experiments themselves.

  • The controversy does not seem to be related to evolution or anything about it. Looks like the specimen is in some private collection and it has only sketchy notes about the location of the find. Some suspicion that it was mined illegally and the real source location is obscured, either to avoid the law or to hide it from other fossil seekers. Thus dating of the fossil is confused and there is some speculation.

    Title seems to be simple click bait meant to attract creationists and their opponents.

  • I like how it's hugging the little furry mammal in the artist's conception. It's representative of the long bond of love and friendship that exists between us and our reptilian friends.

  • You mean DRAGON!!!!!!

  • ...when they find one with a voice box. ;-)

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by PRMan ( 959735 )
      Just like Balaam's donkey had a voice box? Or can a spirit possess an animal and cause it to speak?

  • Sure they have something. We don't know what it is. Since it's a fossil we don't know how it happened. Could it be something else happened to land on it after death or was below it before death? We don't know. Show me more with the bone structures in the same place. Then we'll have something. Now it's just a curiosity. Need more proof.

Slashdot Top Deals

Two can Live as Cheaply as One for Half as Long. -- Howard Kandel

Close