Evolution’s Most Effective Killer: Snake Venom

Im not sure about this but hasn't research like this been going on for a long time?

yes, it has. considering that "The first medically active substance isolated from a snake’s venom came from a Brazilian pit viper, Bothrops jararaca, in 1949." and if it takes a long time just isolate specific proteins and enzymes from the venom, it must of been going on from at least 1925.

Isn't evolution clever? Why don't all snakes have venom? How was it decided one group of snakes would have venom and another would not? How did the ability to have venom "spread" from snake to snake? This is junk science because the foundational premise is wrong. Evolution is a lie.

I thought junk science was making statements without backing them up scientifically or backing them up with bs. I can see why you would think it unbelievable that evolution is so fantastic and "evolved", but is it more likely that some all powerful being created us 8000 years ago for entertainment and then left us to screw the world up? If that is the theory you prefer, go with it. Pretty smart of him to put fossils and bones in the ground to throw us off the scent.

Answer my questions. Don't just come up with your anit God rhetoric. Where did the poison come from? How did the first poisonous snake become poisonsous? Why aren't all snakes poisonous then? The fossils and bones in the ground that you refer to do not prove the theory of evolution. Examine the evidence. Darwin's theory does not hold up.

Do you even know what evolution is? You're just asking stupid questions to get into a pointless debate. Get your head out of the Bible and look up some facts first, junior. You're not ready for a debate yet. Here's some clues: "random mutations" and "natural selection."

Dude u dont know what u are talking about how can an explosion large enough to create other elements come outa nowhere outa nothing?

What if the Bible was in fact right and "natural selection" and "random mutations" also had a role in the evolving different species along the way

umm correct me if im wrong but i thought the proper term is venemous..

cwbabcock, it is quite clear that your understanding of Science in general is horribly flawed. At first I thought "this must be a troll post." But then I noticed that "Gawd" has been invoked and therefore logic and reason no longer had a place in this argument.

And whats this about anti-gawd rhetoric? By the very nature of your argument you are anti-god in every way. Who is to say that your view of creation is the correct one? Because it says so in a Bible that was written by Jewish priests 2000 years ago (merely as guide to living and not meant to be taken literally)? What makes that any more relevant than, say, Scandinavian folklore and Norse Mythology? Because a charismatic schizophrenic said he was born of GAWD?

Arnold Glagow once said "The fewer the facts, the stronger the opinion" and boy do you prove him right. But it's ok, I was once like that too. But then I got an education :)

And if it was a troll post, I commend you - you successfully trolled!

When you look at things from science you are supposed to look at the evidence and see where it points not start at your stance and try and find all the evidence to fit it.

Evolution is far from proved so don't start you article out by talking about it as a fact, that is junk science.

I really would like to know how venom works and what proteins and how cures might come out of it. I am interested in the actual science not the propaganda.

If you want to start a religion blog then start one but this is popsci so don't talk about evolution here and how you believe life came to its present state.

Remember Evolution is a theory that conflicts with major fundamental Laws, for instance the second law of Thermodynamics (entropy), The law of biogenesis.

Entropy states that everything goes toward chaos without intervention from external force (evolution is not a force it is a process).

The Law of biogenesis states that life comes only from life not from non-life.

Also defined as information comes only from information... out of nothing you get nothing.

Just using those two show evolution impossible and should be moved as a hypothesis that needs work.

Mutations remove data from dna...to add features you must add data to dna not remove it. Mutations follow the law of entropy evolution contradicts it and has no evidence on the mutation side.

Hey there bryan hopefully you are trolling...

Obviously you have no idea what a mutation is and totally missed the point on how snakes evolved toxins. Mutations generally add information by making copies of an entire gene or change information by single base mutations. There are of course deletion mutations mostly lethal. Take a molecular genetics class at a major university before you try and pass your misinformation off on others.

For an example flowers which are pink or purple differ only in that a pink flower may only have one copy of a pigment gene as opposed to a purple flower with multiple copies of a pigment gene. Just the same as you add pigment to paint to make it darker. Hence a darker flower. Just the same snakes which are more venomous have multiple copies of the same gene, or the same gene with slight mutations.

Entropy is avoided by the use of energy. For most life on earth the sun is the ultimate source of energy. By harnessing and using energy, order is established in living systems. If you didn't add energy to yourself by eating you would die and decay into more simple compounds. Maybe God keeps you alive...or mcdonalds your choice.

You are correct evolution is not a force it's the slow process by which life came to exist. Life was not created. I guess you are still waiting for someone to create life in a test tube and play god. Give it another year or two. Viruses have already been made from scratch.

Venomous snakes are totally SCARY! I cringe at the thought alone!

JT
http://www.FireMe.to/udi

"It kills tens of thousands of people every year."

Evidence for this claim? Nah, didn't think so.

In regard to dontbother's comment, for statistics on snakebite deaths in India alone see http://www.britishcouncil.org/learnenglish-central-trivia-india.htm , which states "In 1981, a thousand deaths were reported in Maharashtra State. In the Burdwan district of West Bengal 29,489 people were bitten in one year with 1,301 deaths. It is estimated that between 35,000 and 50,000 people die of snake bite each year among India’s population of 980 million."

Or see http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/5314104.stm , which states that in India "The Russell's Viper is one of the world's most deadly snakes, and it does most of its killing in India. At least 20,000 victims a year, mostly agricultural workers, suffer the fatal consequences of its bite - pain, vomiting and dizziness, followed by kidney failure. It's not a nice way to die."

For Bryan's comment on evolution. sorry, evolutionary theory has been accepted by biologists and most other scientists for many decades. Creationists may still claim that there is a question about its validity in the world of science, but such statements are ludicrous. And, in case you are one of those creationists who don't understand the difference between a hypothesis and accepted scientific theory, though Einsteins' theories of general and special relativity are "just theories" also, they are still the basis of much of modern physics.

As for evolution and the second law of themodynamics, as bobdole mentions, the earth is hardly a closed system. Perhaps reading " An Introduction to Entropy and Evolution" at http://www.asa3.org/asa/education/origins/thermo.htm might help you.

As for your statement about the law of biongenesis, I would refer you to "The Law of Biogenesis" at http://theframeproblem.wordpress.com/2008/03/02/responding-to-intelligent-designcreationism-the-law-of-biogene...
. The law states that life forms such as mice, maggots, and bacteria cannot appear fully formed, not that life can't arise from non-life.

I'd also suggest "Giant step toward artificial life" at http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2008/01/24/BAPNUKKE4.DTL&type=printable and "Bacteria make major evolutionary shift in the lab" at http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html?feedId...

How will your faith hold up in the coming decades as biological science advances, if you insist God can only have acted like a magician waving a wand to create all life exactly as it is today in a few days and would never use such a complex process as evolution?

Many Christians (I'm assuming you belive you must reject current scientific theory, because you feel it conflicts with your faith) don't feel they must reject modern biological science in order to retain their faith. Even Pope Benedict XVI has stated that belief in evolution can coexist with faith ( see "Pope: Creation vs. evolution clash an ‘absurdity’" at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19956961/ )

There is an interesting discussion on the neurotoxins found in the venom of animals from four different phyla, in Sean B. Carrol's book "The Making of the Fittest." It provides an evo-devo look at how single point mutations can have enormous phenotypical consequences and how different lines of evolution can hit on the same solution using different means.

In the case of the neurotoxins, the four examples given (from sea anemones, marine cone snail, scorpions and black mamba) all kill by blocking the phosphate channels of the victims. They each do so by using a completely different sequences of amino acids. Not good "design" by any means, iif that word is to imply forethought and efficiency, but perfectly in keeping with the concept of evolution, in which organisms are constrained to adapt using what they have available at the time.

"Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored." Aldous Huxley

Answer my questions. Don't just come up with your anit God rhetoric. Where did the poison come from? How did the first poisonous snake become poisonsous? Why aren't all snakes poisonous then? The fossils and bones in the ground that you refer to do not prove the theory of evolution. Examine the evidence. Darwin's theory does not hold up.

1 out of 2 people found this comment helpful

güzel sözler aşk sevgi liseli kızlar arkadaş
arkadaşlık sohbet chat

yes, it has. considering that "The first medically active substance isolated from a snake’s venom came from a Brazilian pit viper, Bothrops jararaca, in 1949." and if it takes a long time just isolate specific proteins and enzymes from the venom, it must of been going on from at least 1925

evden eve nakliyat
nakliyat
evden eve

so, correct me if I am wrong, but the venom in a snake could just as probably evolved other substances by chance, such as water, or even orange juice? do you see what i am saying- are there any snakes that have non-poisonous "venom". would they have died off? snakes with no venom at all have survived quite well. where are all the "accidents" that had to evolve in order to get the venomous snakes we have today?

-A. McCloud