From today's Toronto Star:An ancient snake as long as a bus and weighing about the same as a car probably ate crocodiles for lunch, a University of Toronto researcher says.
The "dinosaur-sized" constrictor dwarfed any serpent ever known to slither across the face of the Earth, nearly twice as long as today's anacondas and pythons.
"It is the world's largest snake," said lead study author Jason Head, a U of T paleontologist.
"It certainly shows that we have no idea what the body-size limits on being a snake are," Head said of the ophiophobiac's nightmare.
The study, which says the aptly named Titanoboa cerrejonensis likely existed some 60 million years ago, will be published tomorrow in the journal Nature.
With an estimated body length of 13 to 15 metres and a weight of 1.25 tonnes, the non-venomous, water-based reptile coiled around its prey and squeezed the life out of it, like modern-day boa constrictors.
"This would have been an aquatic snake that specialized in eating large aquatic vertebrates," says Head. And which aquatic vertebrates in particular? "Primitive crocodiles," Head says, adding the serpents would have swallowed their toothy victims whole.
The species' giant size was deduced from about 180 vertebrae and ribs – representing at least 28 different snakes – found in a Colombian coal mine about two years ago.
By comparing the size of the bones to those of living boas, the researchers were able to extrapolate the ancient anaconda's size, Head says.
The fossilized bones were found in rocks that were 58 to 60 million years old, which means the creatures existed about 6 million years after the dinosaurs perished.
But Royal Ontario Museum paleontologist David Evans said the super-sized serpent had true dinosaur proportions.
"In terms of its size this thing is just enormous," said Evans.
"It is so huge it just basically blows all other snakes that we've known of out of the water in terms of its size. It is really truly huge."
Evans said the snake was as long as an average Tyrannosaurus rex and as heavy as the smaller carnivore Allosaurus.
It would barely be able to squeeze through an average household door.
Evans says the study also sheds light on the relationships between temperatures and snake size - theorizing global warming could well give the world larger snakes.
Cold-blooded, like all snakes, Titanoboa would have required an average temperature of about 33C – eight degrees warmer than those currently found in equatorial South America, the paper says.
"The authors have been able to correlate body size changes in snakes with the temperature of the planet," Evans says.
Today's biggest snake, the green anaconda, measures a maximum 7.5 metres in length. The Reticulated Python can grow to nine metres, but is lighter than the water-based anaconda.
Previously, the largest fossilized snake ever found was the Gigantophis, which was about 11.5 metres long.
Head, whose paleontological specialty is giant snakes, became involved in the project after University of Florida colleague Jonathan Bloch showed him some vertebrae during a videophone conversation.
"He held up the giant snake on the video screen and I jumped out of my seat," Head recalls.
"He was laughing and I was laughing because we knew we had the world's largest snake."
Head says snakes as a species are great survivors, having slithered alongside of dinosaurs as long as 99.5 million years ago.
Any Creationist explanations for the above would be greatly appreciated.



What does this story have to do with Creationism?
ReplyDeleteThe only issue to debate from this is the fact that scientists today have embraced the extrapolation of time from our basic scientific knowledge. Most of these time lines conflict each other and the circular logic of dating rocks is starting to fall apart.
For example they have found Lucy's "twin" an the Flore's islands. Evolutionists explain that one?
Every fossil that has ever been found is consistent with the theory of evolution. Creationism, by definition, denies that the living organisms in our world (remembering, of course, that 99% of all species that have ever lived are extinct) are the product of evolution.
ReplyDeleteThe story which is the subject of this post debunks Creationism because humans did not coexist with 45 foot pythons that lived 60,000,000 years ago (give or take a couple million years). If you are a Creationist, you believe that the world has only existed for approximately 6000 years. To be frank, I have always been curious about how Creationists explained away dinosaurs and prehistoric pythons - that is the subject of my post tonight.
I am not up to speed on the Flores discovery. About all I can say is that any fossil discovery is more consistent with the theory of evolution than it is with Creationism. The reason for that is simple: Creationism is not a theory. It explains nothing and predicts nothing. It's a big "I dunno" and "it must have been made by the big fairy in the sky".
The one thing the theory of evolution has to its advantage is that it evolves with increasing knowledge.
ReplyDeleteHowever, we need to be objective with how we piece together the evidence. We cannot simply place this jigsaw puzzle together in on corner. To be ardently one way or another defeats credibility of the theory and reveals itself as bias.
Examples of dog breeding is not an example of evolution and in my opinion is an example of devolution. To the best of my knowledge we have yet to find an evolutionary stage, yes I am aware of the bone structure of whale limbs, but transitional forms have yet to be found.
The logic of a transitional stage defeats its purpose as at that stage they are somewhat vulnerable during this stage as the "can't fly yet". Show me the proof and then I can accept this process.
Mao seems to think that:
ReplyDeleteall specimens.
of all species.
are perfect.
because they are not evolving individually.
and as "proof"; a single indian elephant has never evolved into an african elephant, a german shepherd has never evolved into a doberman. of this i suspect mao would ask, "there's dobermans and there's dachshunds... if evolution is true, why is there still dobermans?"
i don't believe there is such a thing as a transitional "stage", because that implies stasis on either side of the "stage". mao seems to think that today's bottlenosed dolphin is genetically identical to her ancestors 10, 100, and 85,000 generations ago.
btw mao, dog breeding is an example of artificial selection, not natural selection. Dog breeds are directed by the hand of dudes, not nature. It is nevertheless evolution by artificial selection, because today's dachshund looks very different from her ancestor 4,000 generations ago. While Shadowe has done no evolving herself, she HAS evolved because the undesirable traits of her uncles and great uncles were removed from the gene pool when their human masters denied them reproduction.
sorry to be offtopic... that megasnake is badass.
Dog breeding is merely an example that evolutionists cling to as evidence of the possibilities of change.
ReplyDeleteTo give you a better contradicting example study the coelacanth fish. Think about it, no change up till today. So this is not off topic, the issue is the assumption that time is of singular significance.
Look at fossils of dragon flies and insects of "millions of years ago". Let just not buy it yet "lock, stock and barrel".
sorry to be OT again but, chairman, somebody lied to you.
ReplyDeletewho told you that the coelacanth has shown "no change up till today"? did you study the coelacanth yourself? you're gonna have to show me the peer-reviewed article that claims or even suggests that the coelacanth is genetically identical to her Devonian ancestors. heck, you can even replace "genetically identical" with any description you think supports your view. because if a scientist isn't saying it, you're not refuting science. if a scientist isn't saying it, you're merely saying that your pastor's science is impossible, and we'd be in agreement.
it's interesting that of all the species on the planet, you chose the coelacanth. Honestly, there are at least two dozen fish that i can name off the top of my head, not to mention mammals, reptiles, insects, birds, and a bunch of vegetation, but you chose the coelacanth. Do other species not support the creationist view?
anyway, that superviper is wicked-bad, and i wouldn't want to have to get on the other side of one.
Please don't kill the messenger. Time is the issue here, evidence of life forms from the past and dated from that point. This is why I mention Lucy and her new found modern "twin" on the Flore's islands, the coelacanth fossils and recent actual video and photos, dragon flies and numerous past insects. They all seemingly fly in the face of our understanding of evolution, scientists agree with respect to Lucy and other recent findings in Europe. A real monkey wrench if you have been following these recent discoveries.
ReplyDeleteLucy, dragonflies, and the coelacanth fly in the face of exactly whose understanding of evolution? Your understanding, perhaps? Your dad's understanding?
ReplyDeletecertainly not my understanding of evolution, and certainly not the understanding of any biologist in a peer-reviewed journal on those subjects.
i mean i could be wrong, but you'd have to find a journal that supports your claims. the fact that you've yet to do this gives me reason to suspect that you're full of doo-doo, and you are merely refuting your own so-called science.
anyway, that snake-to-end-all-snakes is scary awesome and i'd be screwed if one of them took my sister hostage.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/hobbit/program.html
ReplyDeletethank you, the hobbit program is quite fascinating. i fail to see how the scientific community's inability to suss out the hobbit's history, damages in any way our understanding of how evolution works. the hobbit did not screw up the radiocarbon dates of the mountains of fossils uncovered since Origin was published. the hobbit did not erase or negate the information gathered on and clearly demonstrated by those fossils.
ReplyDeleteeven if the hobbit's cousins are never uncovered and her story remains a complete mystery, new and challenging discoveries do not "break evolution".
Thanks for posting that link Mao.
ReplyDeleteThis thread reminded me of an excellent chapter of Stephen Law's The Philosophy Gym entitled Is Creationism Scientific? Law points out that the layering of the fossil record appears to provide irrefutable proof of the theory of evolution. I find the following reasoning quite persuasive:
"The theory of evolution predicts that, where fossils are discovered, they will be found in a particular order within rock strata. Ir predicts that there will be no reversals - one will never find, for example, even a single example of a mammal that was fossilised at the same time as and within the same rock layer as some very early, primitive life form. Evoltionary progression will be exhibited up through the strata. If, on the other hand, creationism is true and no process of evolution took place, the, prima facie, such reversals should be the rule rather than the exception. ..... [and here is the kicker] The fact that, even today, after millions and millions of fossils have been excavated, not one single creditable and well-substantiated example of msuch a reversal has ever been recorded very strongly confirms the theory of evolution."
Law is a philosopher but his explanation of why creationism is bunk is the most coherent I have ever seen.
Let's forgot Creationism for a minute here.
ReplyDeleteThe conclusion of the program says that one postulation for the finding of this and the other skeletal remains in Georgia is that humans thought to have evolved may actually have lived together at the same time. In Georgia, they found many different human skeletons in one layer.
Mao, believe me, I am more than pleased to forget Creationism.
ReplyDeleteI hope I have not been mistaken as denying that mysteries remain when it comes to understanding how and why biological organisms evolve. However, the fact that organisms evolve and that we are the product of evolutionary development has been proven to be virtually beyond doubt. In order to understand this rather blatant assertion, I recommend that you read Dawkins' The Blind Watchmaker, The Ancestor's Tale and, if you have the time and interest, the body of scientific work underlying these more popularly accessible works.
Now please don't forget that there is a compelling line of philosophical argument that the reliance of science on inductive reasoning results in all scientific theory (including the belief that the sun will rise this morning) to be irrational! I find this line of argument utterly fascinating which is why I will be dedicating a post to this issue.
As always, I appreciate your insights.
I must take issue with your point "However, the fact that organisms evolve and that we are the product of evolutionary development has been proven to be virtually beyond doubt."
ReplyDeleteThis is not a fact as it has not been proven! It may be the hypothesis "scientists" are embracing and trying to prove, however the evidence is simply not there. Which organism is shown to have evolved?
Every single living organsim on the planet can be proven to have evolved from bacteria. We know that for a fact (i.e. as certain as we can be of any scientific fact) because advances in DNA technology allow us to trace the chain of evolution from eubacteria to every animal and plant is known to man. If you can read Dawkin's The Blind Watchmaker and The Ancestor's Tale and be left with any doubt about the fact of evolution, there must be a religious barrier to your reasoning. It has been proven beyond any shred of doubt.
ReplyDeleteI have ordered these books from the library and will reflect on it, but to say that DNA technology has proven it shows you're lack of objectivity. Evolutionism without proof is another belief system. This patronizing position I feel you have does not accept discussion with regards to science. I am aware of DNA and keep abreast of the latest findings, I am also educated in science. Please do not discount my reasoning due to your beliefs.
ReplyDeleteI apologize if my comments appeared patronizing - that was not my intent. If you have any post-secondary scientific education, you have me beat.
ReplyDeleteI would be very interested to know if your skepticism with respect to what I consider to be the fact of evolution remains after you read those two books. By "fact", I mean that the conclusion that we are the product of evolutionary processes is as uncontrovertible as the fact that the earth revolves around the sun. That being said, I agree that it is only a theory to the extent that we do not have first hand evidence in the form of watching it happen. That weakness applies to most scientific theories. My point is that evolution is the bext explanation we have yet with respect to diversity of life and I am not aware of any facts that would suggest that it is wrong. But never say never .....
Okay.
ReplyDeleteWith regards to diversity of life, do you mean from single cell to salamander to human being along with to moss to cedar? The Darwin camp is really a run-away train.
You are correct in saying that "it is the best explanation we have yet" but the more in depth each discovery gets and the more we try and fit it into this evolutionary mold, the more questions arise (not necessarily a bad thing).
It is equally plausible that there is a master designer or force (however much this disgusts you). The complexity and order of inorganic and organic material right down to the sub-molecular level, laws of thermodynamics, the discovery of mathematical logic and our window into the order of things with calculus indicate omnipresent higher intelligence that we have just begun to comprehend.
This being said, to make a point for Creationism, (forgot the 6000 years); was it also necessary that these evolve as well?
This is another topic though. I look forward to your blog on quantum physics.
I will keep you informed of my thoughts of the two books.
The concept of a master designer doesn't disgust me. I just believe that it is exceptionally implausible based on the available evidence. I really look forward to hearing how you like The Blind Watchmaker.
ReplyDeleteI also thought you might be interested in this post that I saved recently from RichardDawkins.net:
Comment #347136 by lvpl78 on February 26, 2009 at 3:12 pm on RichardDawkins.net:
The important thing to understand is triangulation. Triangulation of data from many, many different sources. The distribution of animals in the world, comparative anatomy, comparative molecular biology, geological history, continental drift, gene sequencing, behaviour of organisms, carbon dating and a great, great deal more.The best way to look at it is in the following way. Suppose evolution were true. We would expect to find evidence in any one of the aforementioned categories. Say for example comparative molecular biology. By comparing DNA from any two organisms we can make an estimate as to the age of the most recent common ancestor of those two organisms. For you and your Dad Lisa, it would be evident your most recent common ancestor lived/lives only one generation ago. I am sure you would accept that.However for Lisa's Dad and say me, that estimate would be longer ago. For Lisa's Dad and a chimpanzee it would be even further back, and for Lisa's dad and a wasp it would be much further back still.The important question is whether other evidence triangulates with this. The answer, overwhelmingly, is yes. In fact overwhelming is not the word. You can start with factors from geology. The dating of transitional/ancestral fossils (this means a common ancestor, not a croco-duck), and the shifting of the earth's continents through plate tectonics, triangulate in staggering fashion. Not just in the odd example here and there, but in many, many thousands of examples. The number is limited only by the amount of studies done. If you want, pick a genus. Say cats. Look at the distribution of cat species around the world. Then read about the earth's continental drift. Compare them for yourselves. Keep doing this with any set of data you like until the penny drops.The Galapagos islands alone contain enough of this sort of data to prove evolution as a fact. It is this triangulation of data which is why you don't need to sit watching mutations in a lab to prove it. I strongly advise to read and learn about this wonderful subject. You will never run out of things to learn. What's more, aside from being deeply interesting, it has the added bonus of being actually true.And if Darwinism is indeed like a cult, or a religion, then answer me this. How many religious cults say the equivalent of - "well, Darwin was wrong about this, and actually he got that wrong, and in fact now we know better and in fact so and so is not correct.. etc"? Darwin rightly gets a lot of credit, but has been corrected since on many things. That's how science works. Nothing and nobody is infallible. The evidence decides. You would do well to learn and understand the difference.
Okay let's tango.
ReplyDeleteWith respect to example genus of cats, I am glad this was brought up!
What I tell you is no lie. The cheetah population is loosing it's genetic variability and there is currently much incest as they continue to interbreed. Scientists have identified this as a problem, so they ventured to solve this problem with possible introduction of genetic variability from distant cat genes. They went to Costa Rica and N. American cats to find genes that they could introduce into the cheetahs. The scientist were dumbfounded when they realised that these other cats were also extremely close genetically, basically brothers. This has confused the scientists.
My opinion is that there was no reason to believe that the cats are all genetically distant as the evolutionists believe. Perhaps the plate tectonics occurred rapidly enough to separate this and other species. So the example is mute.