Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This just in snakes can fly!!! This just proves..........Run with it people.
Flying Snakes' Secret Revealed - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/s//livescience/20101123/sc_livescience/flyingsnakessecretrevealed/ - broken link)
I must say it is a remarkable (and rather unfortunate) coincidence that this fossil was found in Israel. If it had turned up in Austria or Portugal there probably wouldn't have been the leap to link it with Genesis.
"The finding does undermine the theory that Pachyrhachis represents an evolutionary link between marine reptiles and true snakes. .... The better preservation of Haasiophis allowed us to use its anatomy as a guide, and gave us the background to see just how much these fossils looked like advanced snakes."
This puzzled me. Why the assumption that it had to be a link between marine reptiles and snakes? Why not land reptiles and snakes? Why could it not be the obvious explanation of loss of legs rather than loss of flippers or whatever?
"but a riddle remains: why do these two snake species have hind limbs? If legs were the norm for snake ancestors, it would make sense to see the species' advanced anatomy as only superficially similar to more modern snakes. On the other hand, the stubby limbs on the fossil snakes might represent an evolutionary reversal, where snakes with advanced skull design regain hindlimbs that were lost or perhaps greatly reduced in their ancestors. Rieppel and his colleagues counted the number of evolutionary steps involved in each possible scenario, and concluded that the redevelopment of limbs was a more likely story."
Indeed. Of course, much would depend on the bone structure. If (like whales) leg bones are indicated, we are looking at the atrophy of a developed leg kept vestigially because it had some advantage or perhaps it was just transitional, as many fossils are.
Certainly C34 went off half - cocked at the mere mention of 'legged snake' before he even read about it.
Yes, while being cautisly sneering and Genesis - wagging about it this site has a good pic of the fossil found in Argentina. Which rather universalizes the Israeli one. The 'legs' actually look to have no bone - structure so heaven knows what they are or were used for.
We can wryly watch them wriggling in damage limitation by dissmissing the significance of any such fossil and pretending that it fits the Creationist model better by using the 'cannot add information' nonsense
"Even if it could be shown that snakes at one time had legs, this actually fits within the creationist model. The loss of features like legs is a type of degeneration, which is the opposite of molecules-to-man evolution (which requires new genetic information for advancement)—see Beetle bloopers for background." misrepresents atrophy as being as much a product of natural selection as development.
This site mentions that the second fossil - which does show bone - structure, was found in Lebanon, which is near enough to Jerusalem to give the Bible - literalists' knee jerk reflex going.
The placing of these 'legs' so far back makes it plain that this snake went on it belly, legs or no. Despite Aswers in Genesis trying on the old trick of 'scientists can't agree' (so the Bible must be right) it is pretty clear that we are looking at an evolutionary development of some kind and I'd have suggested a loss of locomotion is a pretty well developed snake.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 11-24-2010 at 06:11 AM..
Old Covenant, now is the day of grace. You need to read your Bible.
Whoa, wait a minute there, partner.
So you are saying the Old Testament is wrong? Or just "out of date???"
(The quote above is your response to my admonition to stone me because I am literally violating your god's word. It's because that since you take the Bible literally, you must therefore follow HIS command and kill me.)
If you can't take the Old Testament moral commandments literally anymore, Campbell, then why do you take Genesis literally? Or are you playing mental gymnastics that say you can't take "moral commandments" literally, yet we must take the OT as "literal history?"
You must be the most slippery and intellectually confused member on C-D (maybe just a tad behind YSM though).
One can easily imagine an ongoing array of adaptive dichotomies, where legless reptiles develop legs to enhance, say, climbing or specific mobility challenges. Like perhaps, speed of movement on certain types of surface? Or the ability to grasp prey or dig up small insects? all valid reasons, but not the only ones, and not the only possible "proper" direction.
Meanwhile, a limbless snake species may be constantly presented with a yummy potential prey animal that always manages to out-wriggle it down the rabbit hole. So the opportunity to go leg-less to best allow pursuing some long, skinny rodent or insect down a hole cannot go unanswered.
Both genetic migrations occurring at the same time, to achieve twodifferent but equallyvalidnecessities. Oh My!
Ergo, true limbless snakes. Christian apologists need to stop applying their particular mindsets and predetermined evolutionary "vectors" to adaptation. I.e.: to proclaim that organisms would only evolve in one direction, that which would allow them to better mimic man's supposed achievements and superiority. As in: legs. Legless is less; leggy is more, because, hey: Lady GaGa and Jessica Alba both have them!
Because... if a snake makes such evolutionary "mistakes" as determined by theists, why then, Evolution must be a lie, right?
This stuff's better than the combined opening jokes of Conan and Leno!
So you are saying the Old Testament is wrong? Or just "out of date???"
(The quote above is your response to my admonition to stone me because I am literally violating your god's word. It's because that since you take the Bible literally, you must therefore follow HIS command and kill me.)
If you can't take the Old Testament moral commandments literally anymore, Campbell, then why do you take Genesis literally? Or are you playing mental gymnastics that say you can't take "moral commandments" literally, yet we must take the OT as "literal history?"
You must be the most slippery and intellectually confused member on C-D (maybe just a tad behind YSM though).
Don'cha know? The OT laws are obsolete because gawd - that eternal, unchanging source of objective morality - woke up one day (after resting, as omnipotent, all-powerful gods are apt to do) and promptly changed his mind about what is objectively moral. He decided that stoning folks to death for collecting firewood on Saturdays was a rather daft idea after all, but then having some poor sap nailed to a cross and tortured horribly was a super keen way to forgive humanity's sins.
Last edited by QuixoticHobbit; 11-25-2010 at 01:24 AM..
""Even if it could be shown that snakes at one time had legs, this actually fits within the creationist model. The loss of features like legs is a type of degeneration, which is the opposite of molecules-to-man evolution (which requires new genetic information for advancement)—see Beetle bloopers for background." misrepresents atrophy as being as much a product of natural selection as development." Should have read:
""Even if it could be shown that snakes at one time had legs, this actually fits within the creationist model. The loss of features like legs is a type of degeneration, which is the opposite of molecules-to-man evolution (which requires new genetic information for advancement)—see Beetle bloopers for background." misrepresents atrophy, which is as much a product of natural selection as development."
Campbell really had 'joined the dots' here: "snake + legs over wild conclusion - jump = Incontrovertible literal Bible proof"
Bearing in mind that not being definite about what these legs were used for or whether the product of development or atrophy, the fact that they are placed way back on a belly - walking snake suggests evolutionary process rather than the leap of faith to Genesis on the basis of keyword 'legged snake' (plus middle east which can be fiddled as 'near Jerusalem' I think he said).
This 'Bible evidence' is really rather foolish as befits Answers in Genesis.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"Alarm!" "ALARM!" "Where's the supervisor?"
