Reptile & Amphibian Forums

What is the evolutionary benifit of the way gila's skulls are shaped?

I have no idea. I honestly don't see how gilas survive in the wild. They are slow and stupid. Stupid might not be the best word, but the pair I work with don't lead me to believe otherwise.

I can only guess that their skull evolved to support their glands and fangs while offering maximum protection.

But by no means, treat my guess as fact. I don't know much about their anatomy or morphology. Only a guess.

I'm sure someone will come along and explain quite something different.
-----
2.4.0 Leopard Geckos
0.1.0 California Kingsnake
0.1.0 Copperhead
1.1.0 Eastern Box Tutles

I don't think of them as stupid but I do agree with what you're saying, sort of. I think of them as the opossums of the reptile world. The don't seem to see well, they always act annoyed. When they are given food it almost seems like a coincidence when they find it -- they just happen to wander over to the right place. They seem like they're pissed when they're searching for food and when they find food.

I love them, how they look, how they act. It's a strange niche they occupy, an odd sort of "slow and steady wins the race" lifestyle.

Be careful. If neither of you have ever experienced it, I assure you a gila can run if it feels like it. I've also had one "jump" up on it's hind legs trying to bite me (I was well out of reach).

My guess is that the normally slow movement is an adaptation to avoid attracting the attention of predators.

(You should see how fast a sloth can move when it feels like it.)
-----
What goes up must come down...unless it exceeds escape velocity.

Like I said, I work with two of them.......if they're capable of agility and precise dexterity, they sure ain't convincing me.
-----
2.4.0 Leopard Geckos
0.1.0 California Kingsnake
0.1.0 Copperhead
1.1.0 Eastern Box Tutles

Yes there slow until they grab you ! They are capable of short term speed with there neck and mouth . David

Evolution is directionless. It is a process that is derived from selection on random mutations. The skull doesn't have to have a 100% efficient morphology design to persist, it simply has to allow the animal to survive and reproduce in a given environment. If selection pressures are relaxed (such as super abundant resources, etc, which isn't necessarily the case here, just an example of relaxed selection pressures) there can be long periods of time where an inefficient morphology/adaptation/etc can persist as the predominant phenotype of a species. In short, the gila monster has the skull morphology that it has *PROBABLY* because it works, and no significant change has occurred that has out-competed the current phenotype.

>>In short, the gila monster has the skull morphology that it has *PROBABLY* because it works, and no significant change has occurred that has out-competed the current phenotype.

I think the OP's question was "why does it work?" I assume he was referring to the surface texture of the skull, which SEEMS unusual and complex enough that it SEEMS unlikely it would have dominated if it did not have some advantage of a previous form (though it's not impossible). The question is, what is that advantage?

The best I can really come up with is heat transfer (increased surface area).
-----
What goes up must come down...unless it exceeds escape velocity.

Sounds feasible, but couldn't the opposite effect occur if its head was exposed to the sun?.......or maybe that's what you originally meant and I took it as an efficient way of dissipating the intense heat.................and the ability to do both would also prove advantageous.
-----
2.4.0 Leopard Geckos
0.1.0 California Kingsnake
0.1.0 Copperhead
1.1.0 Eastern Box Tutles

Or as I mentioned in the earlier post, it is entirely possible that it doesn't serve a thermoregulatory function or any really strongly selected evolutionary pressure for that matter for anything. If I did have to venture a guess as to why it is shaped the way it is I'd be more likely to explore the possibilities that their head morphology has to do with muscle attachment etc (they have very good jaw strength, to have this they have to have the muscles and the muscle attachment points).

existing morphology of any inherent structures could have developed through selective pressure and adaption in environments that may not currently exist. The environment that originally produced the current skull morphology in Heloderma may no longer exist, but the structure still functions well enough for this species survival to this day. The current structure may not have had enough selective pressure to change significantly in the current environment, or may be in the process of changing, but either way continues to function well enough to allow for this species continued survival.

Kelly

>>Sounds feasible, but couldn't the opposite effect occur if its head was exposed to the sun?.......or maybe that's what you originally meant and I took it as an efficient way of dissipating the intense heat.................and the ability to do both would also prove advantageous.

Yes, especially given that the skin on the head is usually black, it seems like it would be very efficient and absorbing heat from the sun on a cold day. I imagine it could also be used dissipate heat in the shade on a hot day. (The same hold true for the rest of the body of course.)
-----
What goes up must come down...unless it exceeds escape velocity.

I don't know much about gila monsters, but I know a lot of stuff wrong with the theory of evolution. First off, this advanced world is only 4.5 billion years old. For all of the "chance" to make what we have today, it would take AT LEAST 40 billion years. Secondly, many things like an eye won't work if it misses one part (the principle of irreducable complexity). If you take out a lens then the the iris won't work. If the iris won't work, cones and rods won't work. If those don't work, then the retina won't work, so no correct message will be sent to the brain. Another example of this, is a bat's ears. Their echo-location will not work without special ears for the bat to hear it. So, why would an organism have a retina that has no purpose? It wouldn't give them an advantage, so the genes for it will just fade away. Same with the bat's ears. Why would they have the ears without the ability to produce such a high frequency sound? Thirdly, science has shown that every human shares the same genes dating back to one man and one woman (Adam and Eve; read the Bible) and many cultures that never came in contact with one another talk of a world of flooding; Noah and the Ark; once again, read the Bible). Egyption writing talks about ten plagues (Moses and the Exodus; read the Bible). Finally, something triggering all of the chhemicals in the primortial soup is like saying all of the items needed for a house were laying around and a tornado came through, throwing nails into wood at the right place and cementing bricks together in the perfect way, building a house. And just think about it, evolutionists will even act like there is intelligent design by statements like "nature finds a way". The "religion" of evolution is invalid. So in conclusion, evolution is a joke, and Christianity is the only debated belief that is supported by science/mathematics and history. So please, just go to church, read the bible; see how you like it.

Haha.... maybe you should read a biology/genetics text book!

Chris

It makes me mad how scientists will not even consider the idea of God. Evolution is so complex that it takes more of a leap of faith to believe in the theory than in God. It is a theory anyway, and shouldn't be taught as a fact.

Gravitation, magnetism, relativity, plate tectonics, photosynthesis, etc. I believe you have a poor concept of the definition of a scientific theory.

Kelly

If you do not believe in evolution, the next time you are sick with a bacterial infection ask them to give you the antibiotic medicine they used 20 years ago and then tell me why it didn't work. That is all I will say.

Also, take into the account the species of bacteria that eats nylon.
-----
2.4.0 Leopard Geckos
0.1.0 California Kingsnake
0.1.0 Copperhead
1.1.0 Eastern Box Tutles

The genes involved to break down the nylon is on a plasmid, which is made to help bacteria adapt to food better. And keep in mind that the bacteria can't eat regular sources of food and is 1/50th the efficiency that regular bacteria can process food. So really, it isn't an effective "mutation" and will eventually go away.

The genes involved to break down the nylon is on a plasmid, which is made to help bacteria adapt to food better. And keep in mind that the bacteria can't eat regular sources of food and is 1/50th the efficiency that regular bacteria can process food. So really, it isn't an effective "mutation" and will eventually go away.

But it is an adaptation....you admitted as much yourself. Is that not the least bit supporting of evolution which is based on adaptation and natural selection?
-----
2.4.0 Leopard Geckos
0.1.0 California Kingsnake
0.1.0 Copperhead
1.1.0 Eastern Box Tutles

I'll borrow from my expertise and experience acquired from longtime participation on a quasi-religious/cult recovery site (never mind which one; there are a number, all fairly alike, and like Superman, I'm gonna hang on to my secret identity, because, unlike the Man of Steel, I'm not bulletproof).

Unfortunately, I'm likely to be accused of extreme rudeness; there are only so many synonyms for dishonesty that can be used in polite company; "prevaricating" and "dissembling" come to mind, but ultimately bluntness seems to shine through, and liars always seem to go ballistic when they are called out as such.

So I'll hold back for a bit (but I expect others won't be shy, and I promise I'll have their back).

Frankly, though, I find it hysterical that you can discount the logic of evolutionary forces and their timeline and yet believe a corpse three days dead can be re-animated--a friend of mine calls your kind "zombie worshippers"--and magically ascend to the heavens to become truler and redeemer for what now number six billion souls (of course I'm not sure if we agnostics and atheists are acknowledged, not that we particularly worry about that one).

Now, for your first exercise in critical thinking, rather than pick on Christianity, how about I suggest you consider the total number of animal species extant in the world, and try to figure out just how ferkin' big that ark of Noah's would've had to be . . . Of course then you'll have to figure in the logistics of food storage and waste disposal . . .

Please, though, make my day . . . Tell me you were drunk last night and misread your calendar and thought today was April 1st . . .

Microevolution (adaptation, change etc. whatever you wanna call it) is as obvious as gravity. Denying it is non-sense.

Macroevolution on the other hand is a whole different avenue and in my opinion is impossible but I have to say that most of my scientist colleagues disagree with me on that and I respect them.

In my opinion, their behavior is a defense mechanism against Christianity as Christianity in middle ages did everything possible to stop scientific studies and they do not want to go back to those days. Western scientists can not accept the idea of God in their heart of hearts so they choose to accept the next best possible explanation.
-----
We are the best GALATASARAY

Because their scientific inquiries, etc. in physiology have failed to identify that organ you referred to, i.e. a "heart of hearts," could it? I admit my own attempts at dissection were limited to worms, frogs, crayfish and such in high school biology, but I'll be happy to confirm that one with my sister, the doctor (any MD's or physiologists around, feel free to chime in). I find no such structure labeled or mentioned in any standard work on physiology . . .

Or are you speaking in metaphorical terms? If that's the case, that is an area of professional expertise of mine (undergrad in English, grad work in creative writing and applied psychology and education), and there's a real danger in mistaking the abstract nature of metaphors with the concrete and measurable reality of hard science. There is, for example, no area of the brain one can label "ego" even though it is useful to be able to label certain intransigent sorts as possessing particularly grotesque examples thereof...

Your opinion that "Macro-evolution . . . is impossible" reminds me of an old Scottish mother reviewing the parade passing before her and commenting "They're all out of step but my Johnny."

Take a look at the "monotremes" of Australia if you're going to claim that macro-evolution is impossible. The platypus and the echidna are clearly intermittent forms that the ID crowd denounces as non-existent; they lay eggs as do reptiles, and yet they produce milk to nurse their young in the manner of mammals. Except the mothers don't secrete it from teats like other mammals but rather from specialized areas on their bodies that contain modified sweat glands . . .

I just wanted to thank everyone who posted. It was very informative and helped alot. Thanks again.

Chad Ramsey