Some evolutionary theories stated that life began under water, but fossils show that snakes...?
488753
Snakes evolved in the water first...at the time life began in the water...land on earth couldn't sustain life because of toxic gases and the heat...the first phylums to set foot on land were reptiles and arthropods (joint footed animals) example-horseshoe crab
93944
The oldest fossil evidence for life on Earth is found in 3.5 billion year old rocks in the Pilbara region of Western Australia. Along with rocks of similar age in South Africa these are the oldest well preserved sedimentary rocks known. The evidence for fossil life takes the form of: \n\nstructures called stromatolites which are believed to be the fossilized remains of laminated structures built by colonies of micro-organisms. Modern examples of such colonies are found in Shark Bay in Western Australia \nmicrofossils of individual micro-organisms. \ncarbon isotope ratios indicative of biological activity. \nSome recent results include the discovery of 3.45 billion year old stromatolites by scientists of the Geological Survey of Western Australia, and the reporting of microfossils from a deep sea hot spring deposit of age 3.2 billion years by Birger Rasmussen of the University of Western Australia.\n\nWhile controversy surrounds many of the reports of fossils of this age, it is generally accepted that there is sufficient evidence to be reasonably sure that life was well established on earth at about 3.5byr ago. Older rocks at 3.8byr age in Greenland are too greatly deformed to preserve fossils but have been claimed to show evidence for life in their carbon isotope ratios.\n+\nFUNGI and algae first teamed up to form lichen 600 million years ago, according to newly discovered fossils from China. This makes them slightly older than the first fossils of complex soft-bodied animals, and far older than land plants.\n\nLichens are the product of a symbiotic relationship between algae, which produce food, and fungi, which provide moisture, nutrients and a protective framework. The new fossils come from south China, and were laid down in shallow seawater (Science, vol 308, p 1017).
1062864
Yes it's a theory. Science itself refutes Darwinism. Science is disproving evolution more every day. There is less evidence for evolution today than there was when Charles Darwin first came up with the theory. There are a lot of scientists that don't believe in evolution, and more are changing their beliefs all the time. Here is a partial list of creation scientists (past and present).\nhttp://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-scientists.html\nWith all the evidence against it I really don't see how any open minded intelligent human being could believe in evolution. With the lack of proof for evolution it takes more faith to believe in evolution than it does to believe in creation and intelligent design. There is a lot more evidence for intelligent design than there is for evolution.\n\n* The Cambrian Explosion\nNearly all animal phyla made their first appearance in the fossil record at essentially the same time, an interval of some 5 million years (about 525 to 530 million years ago) called the "Cambrian Explosion.\n\nScientists have found that these early fossils exhibit more anatomical body designs than exist today, and that early animals, the trilobites, had eyes as fully developed as their counterparts today.\n\nMany of the Cambrian fauna, still survive today, all looking much like they did over 500 million years ago. The prominent British evolutionist, Richard Dawkins, comments, "... We find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history.\n\nTwo places in the world that have an abundance of early (Cambrian) fossils; the Burgess Shale in the Canadian Rockies and the Chengjiang site in China.\n\nIn Stephen J. Gould's popular book, Wonderful Life, he points out that the Burgess Shale Cambrian fossils include "a range of disparity in anatomical design never again equaled, and not matched today by all the creatures in the world's oceans.\n\nFurther, these fossils contain some twenty to thirty kinds of arthropods*** that cannot be placed in any modern group. The modern arthropods, consisting of almost a million species, can all fit into four major groups. But "one quarry in British Columbia, representing the first explosion of multicellular life, reveals more than twenty additional arthropod designs." Today there are about 38 phyla in existence, but the Canadian, Chinese and other Cambrian sites reveal over fifty phyla.\n\nThere has been a decrease in diversity (probably due to global catastrophes). This is the reverse of what evolutionary theory predicts.\n\nBesides diversity, the Burgess Shale shows exquisite detail, right down to "the last filament of a trilobite's gill," or the last meal in a worm's gut.\n\nThe Chengjiang site has even greater detail, and is earlier. According to Paul Chien, the chairman of the biology department at the University of San Francisco, said the preservation is such that internal organs, nerves, and even the water ducts of jellyfish are observable.\n\nResearchers found striking similarities between the compound eyes of the Cambrian trilobites and those of modern insects. According to Riccardo Levi-Setti, "Trilobites could see in their immediate environment with amazingly sophisticated optical devices in the form of large composite eyes. ... The number of individual optical elements in the compound eye could vary from approximately one hundred to more than fifteen thousand in a single eye, a range not very different from that found in modern insects.\n\nThe conclusion is that the eye, a complex visual system, was fully formed and functional extremely early in the fossil record. Obviously, this is not predicted by evolutionary theory.\n\nUntil recently, the phylum of vertebrates had been considered a later arrival in evolutionary history. But not now! Even the vertebrate phylum now extends into the Cambrian pe
667063
The phylogeny of snakes is poorly known due to the fact that snake skeletons are typically small and fragile, making fossilization unlikely. It has however been generally agreed, on the basis of morphology, that snakes descended from lizard-like ancestors. Recent research based on genetics and biochemistry confirms this; snakes form a venom clade with several extant lizard families.\n\nRecent fossil evidence suggests that snakes directly evolved from burrowing lizards, either varanids or some other group. An early fossil snake, Najash rionegrina, was a two-legged burrowing animal with a sacrum, fully terrestrial. One extant analog of these putative ancestors is the earless monitor Lanthanotus of Borneo, although it also is semi-aquatic. As these ancestors became more subterranean, they lost their limbs and became more streamlined for burrowing. Features such as the transparent, fused eyelids and loss of external ears, according to this hypothesis, evolved to combat subterranean conditions (scratched corneas, dirt in the ears). According to this hypothesis, snakes re-emerged onto the surface of the land much as they are today. Other primitive snakes are known to have possessed hindlimbs but lacked a direct connection of the pelvic bones to the vertebrae, including Haasiophis, Pachyrhachis and Eupodophis) which are slightly older than Najash.\n\nThe alternative hypothesis, based on morphology, suggests that ancestors were related to mosasaurs — extinct aquatic reptiles from the Cretaceous — which in turn are thought to have derived from varanid lizards. Under this hypothesis, the fused, transparent eyelids of snakes are thought to have evolved to combat marine conditions (corneal water loss through osmosis), while the external ears were lost through disuse in an aquatic environment, ultimately leading to an animal similar in appearance to sea snakes of today. In the Late Cretaceous, snakes re-colonized the land much like they are today. Fossil snake remains are known from early Late Cretateous marine sediments, which is consistent with this hypothesis, particularly as they are older than the terrestrial Najash rionegrina. Similar skull structure; reduced/absent limbs; and other anatomical features found in both mosasaurs and snakes lead to a positive cladistical correlation, though some features are also shared with varanids. Supposedly similar locomotion for both groups is also used as support for this hypothesis. Genetic studies have indicated that snakes are not especially related to monitor lizards, and (it has been claimed) therefore not to mosasaurs, the proposed ancestor in the aquatic scenario of their evolution. However, there is more evidence linking mosasaurs to snakes than to varanids. Fragmentary remains that have been found from the Jurassic and Early Cretaceous indicate deeper fossil records for these groups, which may eventually refute either hypothesis.\n\nThe great diversity of modern snakes appeared in the Paleocene, probably correlated with the adaptive radiation of mammals following the extinction of the dinosaurs.
390773
It's an example of a transition between lobe-finned fish and AMPHIBIAN vertebrates, not reptiles.  \n\n(Well, it is a reptile transition in the sense that it's part of the spectrum between fish and reptiles, but it's also part of the spectrum between fish and birds or fish and mammals, it just seems a bit forced to call it a fish/mammal transition to me.)\n\nMore importantly, it shows exactly the type of features scientists predicted it should have, confirming the most common theory about how vertebrates moved onto land.
320406
There are many things that support the theory of evolution.  Mainly, the fossil record and the fact that you are here, though if natural selection holds true, you will not be working in any fied of science any time soon. \nThe tide example that you state does not disprove evolution because it's false; the amount of water in the world has not change as you suggest.  There is no reason to believe that any change in tides would work increasingly to cover the earth with water.  There are fluctuations in the level of the seas that follow geological and thermal events over the course of centuries and millenia, like the ice ages. In second place, evolution is not about the age of the earth, it's about natural adaptation to the environment. Examples to prove it can be found anywhere in nature.  Sea iguanas in Galapagos are one of the best-known examples of adaptive development.   If there was no evolution, these iguanas would be terrestrial like all of the other species of iguana in the world.  But they're not, they have evolved an adaptation to marine environments.  Think of that as a microcosm of what happens in the rest of nature.\nWhy do we have a residual tailbone?  Why do whales have residual fingers?  We don't have tails and we don't need them, but the tailbone is there...  If someone meant for us to have a tail, they would have given us a tail or none altogether.  The fact that we have a bone structure that serves no apparent purpose but to cause pain when you fall on your but and break it proves that there is an ongoing process that we are a part of.\nEvolution does not exclude creation, it just makes creation dynamic and alive at a much broader scale.  That creation cannot be a process driven by biology instead of a stagnant  pile of events is not written anywhere in any holy book.
304118
Birds are the direct descendents of dinosaurs.  Many scientists will say they *are* dinosaurs.  As such, they are alive, so dinosaurs are alive.\n\nWhile it remains possible that some dinosaurs proper have survived, it is extremely unlikely at this point.  There is no physical evidence for it.\n\nYour second question is difficult to answer.  Are there prehistoric creatures that have survived?  Sure!  Pretty much every species on earth today (even humans!) is older than history, that makes it prehistoric!  Defining prehistoric any other way would essentially make prehistoric mean "not surviving today", so the answer would be no.\n\nWhat you mean, of course, is creatures to have survived from truly ancient times, such as from the Mesozoic (age of dinosaurs) or older, but again, it's difficult to answer.  There probably aren't any actual species that old, but it's difficult to tell if something in the fossil record is actually the same species as something alive today.  Consider, lions and tigers look and act very different alive and are certainly two different species, but it is very difficult to tell their skeletons apart.\n\nA lot of so-called "living fossils" really aren't.  For instance, we have no fossils of the Coelacanth.  It's closest relatives in the fossil record are in another family (as different as cats and dogs).  Cockroaches are often said to have been unchanged for millions of years, but it's not the case as the fossil record records them evolving continuously.  The first fossil cockroaches had three pairs of wings!\n\nBut some things have survived nearly unchanged for millions of years.  Six-gill and Port Jackson sharks are very much like they were in the age of dinosaurs.  The Tuatara is surprisingly like it's Mesozoic relatives.\n\nBut the king of living fossils is the Lingula brachiopod.  It looks like a clam and lives by filter feeding, but don't let it's calm appearance fool you.  These little guys are survivors.  They've been living in Earth's oceans almost unchanged for 550 million years!  That's almost as long as we have animal fossils at all!  Dinosaurs are hardly teenagers by comparison!\n\nAddenda:  The Komodo Dragon is NOT believed to be a dinosaur, at least not by scientists.  It is just a large monitor lizard.  Dinosaurs are not lizards, being classed among the Archosaurs with the crocodiles, pterosaurs and birds.
936352
Darwinian theory can't explain which came first as one didn't evolve from the other. Plants evolved from algae and animals evolved from non-photosynthetic eukaryotes.
525455
If snakes evolved from land dwelling creatures, then those land dwelling creatures evolved from sea creatures.  After all, humans evolved on land.
131553
most likely fish, or another animal that lives in water, perhaps an early reptile
627308
maybe the origin of species has something
80631
I am not sure I understand your question so I will answer it two ways. Fossils are found in sedimentary rock because they originate as living organisms, and their remains will be carried away or buried by the same processes that create sedimentary rocks. Windblown sand will build and move sand dunes, moving water will transport sediment, gravity will cause piles of rock to build up at the base of mountains, and all sorts of sediment and remains will settle to the bottom of the sea. All are possible sedimentary rocks. Since igneous rocks were once melted, and metamorphic rocks undergo chemical changes from heat and pressure, it is not possible to find fossils in these rocks. \n\nMy second answer is how sedimentary rocks (and fossils) end up in layers. Many of the processes that move the sediment, like wind, flowing water, and some gravity driven events, only happen periodically. Storms create windstorms, heavy rainfall causes rivers to flood, and often things like heavy rain will trigger a sudden landslide. These events are distinct, and each one will create a new layer of deposits somewhere. Another way these layers are created is that rivers will often change course due to changes in flow. This will cause areas that have accumulated sand to now be covered by silt or shale when the river overflows its new channel. As the river builds a delta outward into the ocean, the part of the delta where the river first meets the ocean will deposit sand, while clays and silt are carried further out into the ocean. This will create layers of shale that are later covered by sand. Within each of these layers fossils of any organism that died while those were being deposited will be trapped, and the fossils in turn can be used to calculate the age of those deposits. Every layer of a sedimentary rock represents some event in the history of the earth. \n\nIn limestone, which has a very high content of fossils, the reason for this is that the limestone is built by the accumulation of the body parts left behind by those organisms. The fossils in limestone may not be transported at all, and instead may be in same place the organism lived (in relation to the immediate rock). Layers in limestone are more often created by rising and falling of sea level. As sea level raises many organisms that end up as limestone will die off. They will then be covered by a layer of sediment falling from the overlying water, and if sea level drops again, new organisms will begin to colonize the shallower water and build another layer of limestone.
247560
It depend if you are a religions person or believe in facts. Me, as a geologist I believe in facts and science.\nThe earth forms 4.6 billions years ago. How did we know? By using the radioactive decay method. \nNobody really knows how it form but you can get differrent references. Try historical geology books. \nEarth solidifies around 3 billion years ago, how? From the dated rocks namely Banded Iron Deposits. Life began at PreCambrain era. Meaning 512 millions years ago. Dinosaurs came to life at least 100 million years ago and died 65 miilion years ago because of  a comet hitting the earth.\nActually there are a lot more happend but for your satisfaction try to look for a Historical geology book. A very interesting book.
877429
Assuming it's true, then it's probably because of creatures' abilities to adapt to their environments.  Over centuries, evolution and genetic mutations and such allow different species to form, to become most suitable for their habitat.\n\nHowever, I'm a bit doubtful that a snake, a cold-blooded animal, would be able to survive in such a cold region....
350633
The Elapids (the group of venomous snakes to which the cobras belong) only evolved about 15 million years ago.\n\nThe only snakes around in the Mesozoic would have been similar to the pythons and boas of today.\n\nThe largest group of living snakes, the Colubroids (which include the Elapids, vipers, sea snakes, garter snakes, king snakes, and most other groups of living snake) only evolved about 20 million years ago, making the late Cenozoic the era of highest adaptive radiation among the snakes.
677150
There are several lines which scientist use to prove that evolution is occurring which are embryology, palaeontology, evidence from similar anatomy\nIn case of Palaeontology this is the study of remains of past living organisms. In this case the remains are dug and they show a change from the top going down the earth's crust In this study at the top of the earth's crust the remains of organisms found are complex but going down deeper simple remains of organisms are found this suggest that organism are changing from simple form into complex forms.\nAnother thing that is observed are the remains of certain organism which don't exist by the time and remains of organisms which were not in the inner parts suggest that new species are formed
1059352
Why are Reptiles there....If Birds Evolved from them?