The "Lets Not be Snake Food" Theory.

[MedusasOwl]

The idea of racial cellular memory is interesting, I've never really thought of it in terms of instincts, perhaps because I've heard a number of "past life memory=ancestral memory" sorts of theories that I dunno how to feel about. But like the instinctual reactions, like salmon knowing where to go to spawn etc... that's really interesting.

It is a tricky theory to test though. Hmm... An animal's personality and cleverness always come into play too. Nature likes to be unpredictable like that sometimes.

[Lady Python]

Something that cats have in common with snakes is that they both have Jacobsen's organs to aid their taste of prey when hunting.

[jessie_k_pythons]

Man, some days I really wish I had cable! But this is why I usually love PBS

I saw a similar thing to the snake/rodent venom immunity except it was the opposite... like a poisonous frog or salamander (I don't remember which) that gets more and more poisonous as the local snakes grow more and more immune. Evolution in action! Chemical weapon arms race! Amphibians are the craziest with the arms race, I think. They adopt/change in relation to their environment so fast, it seems like!

I hadn't heard the chimp thing though! That's awesome. Snakes are so a part of everyone's psyche... myths, legends, nature, evolution... I've even read a theory once that the reasons cats hiss is to immitate snakes, because most animals are more intimidated by snakes than they are cats. (maybe this is why Tigers don't feel the need to hiss? lol!). I just love it. They're such special creatures, in every culture and environment. Just amazing!

I heard that Cane Toad posion is becoming more and more toxic with each generation. but some snakes stay ahead of the curb as well. I heard about a snake here in the US that still is able to eat the Cane Toad with out any effects at all.... saw a photos of it some where too... something about "a ---snake enjoys a meal of can toad.----- note the milky posion oozing out the mouth of the snake, not having any effect what so ever" something like that ... it was cool though.

[frankykeno]

Mother Nature is such a smart old broad!

[Mendel's Balls]

The really funky part of this chimp thing is if you believe in Darwin's theories and the fact that we share so much genetic similarities with chimps, there are those that say our fear of snakes comes down from that instinctive reaction. Basically a racial memory concept. Who knows...just kind of interesting.

The idea of racial cellular memory is interesting, I've never really thought of it in terms of instincts, perhaps because I've heard a number of "past life memory=ancestral memory" sorts of theories that I dunno how to feel about. But like the instinctual reactions, like salmon knowing where to go to spawn etc... that's really interesting.

Cellular memory, radical memory, radical cellular memory, past life memory, whatever you want to call it has nothing to do with Darwinism........

Our instinctual reaction to sakes and chimps’ instinctual response to snakes, in terms of Darwinism, would be explained by descent with modification (not cellular memory)

A valid articulation of Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection would be something along the lines…..

Chimps and Humans are derived from an ancestral species....the population of that ancestral hominid species contained individuals with different genes...those members with genes that caused them to be jumpy around snakes survived and reproduced at greater rates than those that didn’t have these genes…..when the parent species gave rise to two daughter species these genetically wired instincts were maintained down the hominid family tree.

This is only one possible articulation of Darwinian perspective….not trying to piss anyone off….but lets not confuse ideas here.

_______________________________________________________________________

On a different note…….


Cellular memory itself is a confusing term…...to molecular, cellular, and developmental biologists it means a very specific thing (phenomena collectively known as epigenetics)

Cellular memory also could mean the radical overarching, pseudoscientific theories described here…….. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_memory ; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellular_memory; http://skepdic.com/cellular.html


I'm not sure which one you two meant but nethier has very little to do with traditional Darwinism.

Good find on the livescience page!

[recycling goddess]

I heard that Cane Toad posion is becoming more and more toxic with each generation. but some snakes stay ahead of the curb as well. I heard about a snake here in the US that still is able to eat the Cane Toad with out any effects at all.... saw a photos of it some where too... something about "a ---snake enjoys a meal of can toad.----- note the milky posion oozing out the mouth of the snake, not having any effect what so ever" something like that ... it was cool though.

This info is from this site...
There is also an Australian snake species called the Keelback or Freshwater snake (Tropidonophis mairi) which is reportedly immune to the toad's toxin also some debate still rages as to whether it really is immune or if it is only non-toxic juveniles that can be taken. There are other Australian snakes that may be immune and work is in progress in the Northern Territory under the supervision of Dr. Rick Shine of Sydney University.

[MedusasOwl]

Cellular memory, radical memory, radical cellular memory, past life memory, whatever you want to call it has nothing to do with Darwinism........

Our instinctual reaction to sakes and chimps’ instinctual response to snakes, in terms of Darwinism, would be explained by descent with modification (not cellular memory)

A valid articulation of Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection would be something along the lines…..

Chimps and Humans are derived from an ancestral species....the population of that ancestral hominid species contained individuals with different genes...those members with genes that caused them to be jumpy around snakes survived and reproduced at greater rates than those that didn’t have these genes…..when the parent species gave rise to two daughter species these genetically wired instincts were maintained down the hominid family tree.

This is only one possible articulation of Darwinian perspective….not trying to piss anyone off….but lets not confuse ideas here.

_______________________________________________________________________

On a different note…….


Cellular memory itself is a confusing term…...to molecular, cellular, and developmental biologists it means a very specific thing (phenomena collectively known as epigenetics)

Cellular memory also could mean the radical overarching, pseudoscientific theories described here…….. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_memory ; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellular_memory; http://skepdic.com/cellular.html


I'm not sure which one you two meant but nethier has very little to do with traditional Darwinism.

Good find on the livescience page!

Yeah, it is confusing, I guess mostly I was babbling and trying to figure out how instinct works exactly. I mean, I understand evolution in terms of physical development/natural selection and even in terms of cleverness, but I'd never thought about how exactly instincts develop... does that make sense?

I mean, on a completely different page from the reaction to snakes because the way you put it makes a lot of sense. A physical reaction that's favored by natural selection. That makes more sense to me now in terms of Darwin's theory. But that's more reflex than instinct, isn't it? The direction my brain started moving in was animals that migrate or just naturally know certain behaviors specific to their species... where's the line between instinct and reflex? It's completely off topic from the original stuff we were talking about, but I'm all curious now, lol. Cellular memory was a red herring, apparently .

[Melicious]

Seeing as I'm too lazy to find the post, I'll just make mention of it. Someone had mentioned Darwin's Theory and how our genetics are very similar with primates. That's true. We've got 98% of the same genetics with primates, HOWEVER, we've also got approximately 37% of the same genes with another species of flower. I'm not about to spout out the idea that evolution is completely false, however, there's very little proof that proves it. -Shrugs.-

But...back to the topic at hand. I think these adaptations, not so much evolutions, are quite amazing.

[Mendel's Balls]

Yeah, it is confusing, I guess mostly I was babbling and trying to figure out how instinct works exactly. I mean, I understand evolution in terms of physical development/natural selection and even in terms of cleverness, but I'd never thought about how exactly instincts develop... does that make sense?

I mean, on a completely different page from the reaction to snakes because the way you put it makes a lot of sense. A physical reaction that's favored by natural selection. That makes more sense to me now in terms of Darwin's theory. But that's more reflex than instinct, isn't it? The direction my brain started moving in was animals that migrate or just naturally know certain behaviors specific to their species... where's the line between instinct and reflex? It's completely off topic from the original stuff we were talking about, but I'm all curious now, lol. Cellular memory was a red herring, apparently .

A Reflex by definition is an involuntary response to a stimulus in the environment. Reflexes can be learned or inherited. Those reflexes that are inherited are instinctual reflexes. Babies have instinctual reflexes including things like crying when hungry, the newborn grasping and breast sucking reflexes, and shivering when cold.

Seeing as I'm too lazy to find the post, I'll just make mention of it. Someone had mentioned Darwin's Theory and how our genetics are very similar with primates. That's true. We've got 98% of the same genetics with primates, HOWEVER, we've also got approximately 37% of the same genes with another species of flower. I'm not about to spout out the idea that evolution is completely false, however, there's very little proof that proves it. -Shrugs.-

But...back to the topic at hand. I think these adaptations, not so much evolutions, are quite amazing.

You missed my point.....I was pointing out what is Darwinism and what isnt.....Oh and Darwin didnt come up with the idea of evolution.....there are a variety of mechanisms that one could invision that could cause species to evolve. Another mechanism of evolution is Lamarckian evolution.


I'll defend evolutionary biology very quickly here. The fact we share 37% of our DNA Sequences with a flower is hardly evidence against evolution.

Genes for enzymes involved for fundamental processes like cellular respiration are very conserved...they arent going to change much over the course of time. SO of course we share a fair amout of genetic material with very distantly related species......if we didnt that would be evidence against descent with modification.

The fact that we share 98% of our DNA sequence with chimps is more of a problem for genetics to explain than evolutionary biology. How do we explain the baltant phenotypic differences between us and chimps?

Molecular biology is finding a bunch of cool mechanisms for phenotypic difference beside different DNA sequences. RNA splicing, silencing, post-transplation modications, epigentic inheritance, these are all under active investigation.


PS>The big ideas in Science are never proven.

[Melicious]

A Reflex by definition is an involuntary response to a stimulus in the environment. Reflexes can be learned or inherited. Those reflexes that are inherited are instinctual reflexes. Babies have instinctual reflexes including things like crying when hungry, the newborn grasping and breast sucking reflexes, and shivering when cold.




You missed my point.....I was pointing out what is Darwinism and what isnt.....Oh and Darwin didnt come up with the idea of evolution.....there are a variety of mechanisms that one could invision that could cause species to evolve. Another mechanism of evolution is Lamarckian evolution.


I'll defend evolutionary biology very quickly here. The fact we share 37% of our DNA Sequences with a flower is hardly evidence against evolution.

Genes for enzymes involved for fundamental processes like cellular respiration are very conserved...they arent going to change much over the course of time. SO of course we share a fair amout of genetic material with very distantly related species......if we didnt that would be evidence against descent with modification.

The fact that we share 98% of our DNA sequence with chimps is more of a problem for genetics to explain than evolutionary biology. How do we explain the baltant phenotypic differences between us and chimps?

Molecular biology is finding a bunch of cool mechanisms for phenotypic difference beside different DNA sequences. RNA splicing, silencing, post-transplation modications, epigentic inheritance, these are all under active investigation.


PS>The big ideas in Science are never proven.

Which is why the nice, slow rise in sequence of the horse was removed from the Museum of Natural History in New York. Because it was proven to be incorrect. Mendel, if you wouldn't mind, I'd like to take this to another thread...Let's stop mucking up this one. I've got some questions I'd like answered.