Scientists Discover Where Snakes Lived When They Evolved into Limbless Creatures

Penn State ^ | 30 January 2004 | press release

[AdmSmith]

A preprint of the research paper by Vidal and Hedges is posted on at http://www.journals.royalsoc.ac.uk/link.asp?id=pa6a316clj7h

[AdmSmith]

A snake for your collection.

[ErnBatavia]

There was also an attorney somewhere in the evolutionary gene pool...

[BroncosFan]

Ping for you and your Creation "science" adversaries.

[Willie Green]

ping

[VRWC_minion]

14 And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:

[Chewbacca]

Good grief this is common sense stuff.
Shoot, the Bible says right in Genesis that God cursed the serpent and said it would from that day forth crawl on its belly.

[anonymous_user]

Scientists Discover Where Snakes Lived When They Evolved into Limbless Creatures

Democratic Underground?

[colorado tanker]

And I thought snakes came from Hope, Arkansas.

[Fifth Business]

"Having limbs is a real problem if you need to fit through small openings underground, as anybody who has tried exploring in caves knows," Hedges says. "Your body could fit through much smaller openings if you did not have the wide shoulders and pelvis that support your limbs."

[shaggy eel]

[ClearCase_guy]

Their land-based lifestyle, including burrowing underground at least some of the time, may be the reason. "Having limbs is a real problem if you need to fit through small openings underground

Land-based lifestyle? Are limbs somewhat rare among land-based creatures? And the burrowing part? I guess that explains why moles and prairie dogs have no limbs.

As usual, close to 100% guesswork, culminating in a conclusion. The "science" of evolution.

[cyborg]

Yankee senators aren't the only ones who are left wanting in the looks department

[shaggy eel]

,,, oh, where did you dredge that up? Isn't it repulsive?!!!

[Tijeras_Slim]

That woman was beat with a wet squirrel.

[Southflanknorthpawsis]

14 And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:

Thank you for this truth.

I have never held a snake in my life and don't plan to, but I'm told every snake has two spots on its underbelly where there once were legs.

Evolutionists can theorize all they want, but many of us know the truth as stated in the Bible.

[SedVictaCatoni]

Evolutionists can theorize all they want, but many of us know the truth as stated in the Bible.

That snakes eat dust?

[VRWC_minion]

One could argue that the serpent in Genesis is not a snake but rather a representation of evil but this article and scripture don't contradict a literal reading.

[Ol' Sparky]

There isn't even enough fossil evidence to complete the evoluationary fairy tale in theory.

"The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nods of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils. Yet Darwin was so wedded to gradualism that he wagered his entire theory on a denial of this literal record." (Gould, Stephen J. "The Panda’s Thumb, 1980, p. 181)

"Fossil discoveries can muddle over attempts to construct simple evolutionary trees--fossils from key periods are often not intermediates, but rather hode podges of defining features of many different groups... Generally, it seems that major groups are not assembled in a simple linear or progressive manner--new features are often "cut and pasted" on different groups at different times." (Shubin, Neil, "Evolutionary Cut and Paste," Nature, vol. 349, 1998, p. 39.)

"Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn’t changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin’s time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information..." (Raup, David M., "Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology," Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, vol. 50, 1979, p. 25.)

"Large evolutionary innovations are not well understood. None has ever been observed, and we have no idea whether any may be in progress. There is no good fossil record of any." (Wesson, R., Beyond Natural Selection, 1991, p. 206)

[ErnBatavia]

Yikes! Straight out of Dr. Bukks