As fossil snake with two legs

Another creation myth bites the dust [1].

No another creation myth doesn't bite the dust because those were what the snakes looked like before the fall of man. No creation myth biting the dust! Sorry!

Skinks look roughly like true lizards, but most species have no pronounced neck and sport relatively small legs. Several genera (e.g., Typhlosaurus) have no limbs at all, others, such as Neoseps, have only reduced limbs. Often, their way of moving resembles that of snakes more than that of other lizards. Skinks usually have long, tapering tails that can be shed and regenerated. (from WikiPedia).

386sx: Another creation myth bites the dust [1]. No another creation myth doesn't bite the dust because those were what the snakes looked like before the fall of man. No creation myth biting the dust! Sorry!

Oh yea??!! Well you'll never find a snake with FOUR legs and TOENAILS, cuz only GOD (baruch a shem) cudda dunnit!!!

And on my list of living transitional forms would be penguins, walruses, salamanders (and now frogs) without lungs, roadrunners, and perhaps flying fish.

I guess this one of the snakes that failed to get on board the Ark in time. Perhaps if it had started with four legs - it may have got there before the launch day !

There will always be those creos who, when presented with a transitional form or transitional series, simply point out that now you have more gaps (despite those gaps being half the size of the previous one). I guess the true reality-deniers will never accept that one "kind" of organism can, over many generations, give rise to something different, despite the observational facts that exist in the public domain.

The 3rd chapter of Genesis, the first verse is quite clear on this
Now the serpent with two legs was more subtle than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, "Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?"

You'll need the uncensored version of the KJV. The KJV committee made some cuts after being threatened with legal action by Peter Irons acting on behalf of a Darwinist consortium who claimed that the snake portrayed in Genesis was copied from the "The Origin of Species" (the Darwinist bible).

Oh, look you can't win because there are "two more gaps..." :lol:

Nigel D: There will always be those creos who, when presented with a transitional form or transitional series, simply point out that now you have more gaps (despite those gaps being half the size of the previous one). I guess the true reality-deniers will never accept that one "kind" of organism can, over many generations, give rise to something different, despite the observational facts that exist in the public domain.

Carl: The 3rd chapter of Genesis, the first verse is quite clear on this Now the serpent with two legs was more subtle than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, "Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?" You'll need the uncensored version of the KJV. The KJV committee made some cuts after being threatened with legal action by Peter Irons acting on behalf of a Darwinist consortium who claimed that the snake portrayed in Genesis was copied from the "The Origin of Species" (the Darwinist bible).

From DeepDesign over at UD:

"This is an an interesting find. Doesn’t say anything very profound about evolution, however.

Interesting the Bible of all sources, informs the modern reader that the serpent originally had legs. Which is a startling claim from ancient man."

Romartus:

Carl: The 3rd chapter of Genesis, the first verse is quite clear on this Now the serpent with two legs was more subtle than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, "Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?" You'll need the uncensored version of the KJV. The KJV committee made some cuts after being threatened with legal action by Peter Irons acting on behalf of a Darwinist consortium who claimed that the snake portrayed in Genesis was copied from the "The Origin of Species" (the Darwinist bible).

Should this two legged snake be called Lilith ?

ellazimm: From DeepDesign over at UD: "This is an an interesting find. Doesn’t say anything very profound about evolution, however. Interesting the Bible of all sources, informs the modern reader that the serpent originally had legs. Which is a startling claim from ancient man."

Moses: Oh, look you can't win because there are "two more gaps..." :lol:

I am currently teaching maths to adults who are close to functionally innumerate. Many seem to have difficulty in transitioning from making discrete measurements of a pair of variables (such as time and distance of a moving object) to a continuous function. I wonder if many creationists would have a similar difficulty.

— Richard Simons

MattusMaximus:

Moses: Oh, look you can't win because there are "two more gaps..." :lol:

You jest, but I have actually heard creationists make such arguments before, and they seriously believed what they were saying. The self-imposed ignorance of some people is astonishing to me.

Are there other fossils like this where snakes have atavistic legs?

Carl being amusing: The 3rd chapter of Genesis, the first verse is quite clear on this Now the serpent with two legs was more subtle than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made.

Interesting the Bible of all sources, informs the modern reader that the serpent originally had legs. Which is a startling claim from ancient man.”

MW Caldwell and MSY Lee claimed that a Cretaceous fossil with obvious hind limbs, which they called Pachyrhachis problematicus, is the oldest known snake. However, they had to slightly redefine the definition of "snake" to fit this fossil into the group commonly known as "snakes." The absence of limbs has long been viewed as the essence of being a member of the group "snakes." Caldwell and Lee argued that mosasaurs (extinct marine lizards with limbs adapted as fins) represent "a crucial intermediate stage" in the evolution of modern snakes and that ancestral snakes had limbs and were aquatic. Their ideas are contrary to the long-held view that snakes evolved from small, terrestrial lizards or even burrowing lizards by an increasing reduction in limb size.

Some pythons and other relatively primitive snakes have tiny, claw-like hind limbs that are used during courtship and in combat between males. Boas and pythons also have rudimentary femurs and pelvic girdles. This strongly argues that these animals are secondarily limbless.

Also, snake embryos make hind limb buds that die off and regress due to a non-functional apical ectodermal ridge. The hind limb mesenchyme fails to express sonic hedgehog, which is required for the formation of the apical ectodermal ridge at the tip of the limb bud. Without the apical ectodermal ridge, the limb tissue fails to proliferate and dies.

The forelimbs in snake embryos completely fail to form. Typically in vertebrate embryos, the anterior forelimb forms at the anterior-most expression boundary of Hoxc6, where Hoxc8 is not expressed. Below the forelimb bud, the combination of Hoxc6 and Hoxc8 tells the body to make vertebrae with ribs. In snake embryos, Hoxc8 expression extends further towards the head, and the Hoxc8-free expression domain is absent and Hoxc6 and Hoxc8 expression domains completely overlap. Thus the upper body makes vertebrae with ribs and no forelimbs.

This shows that limb loss in snakes was a two-step process that involved progressive loss of the forelimb and then the hind limb. The fossil record details this with the finding of snake-like creatures that have hind limbs and no forelimbs.

Another creation myth bites the dust

Yeah, while making up lies along the way.

Peter Henderson:

Another creation myth bites the dust

I doubt it PvM. I'm sure Dr. Menton (AiG) is working on this as we speak !

I could have sworn that some of the "Dead Sea Scrolls*" showed that it was an orangutan and not a snake in the GoE.

Poor snakes getting a bad rap for all this time.

*or other some-such "original notes" for the Bible.

And to visualize it they bombarded the fossil with intense X-rays ... this sounds like a set up for a sci-fi/horror movie. Ayyyeee, it's alive! The Serpent of the Garden has been released from its stony prison! Run for your lives!

I'm personally not surprised as there must have been a reason for the organism having legs thus it could have been designed just as easily as evolved.

Then there are the modern 2-legged snakes like pee wee myers and his brownnosing cult of mental midget followers.

If the legged snake fossil is examined though a Biblical lens it can be clearly seen to support the Genesis account.

http://img100.imageshack.us/img100/8091/snakeedenxr3.jpg

Keith, You are too witty for us! Does the doctor know you use his computer when he is not on the ward?

jeh: Ayyyeee, it's alive! The Serpent of the Garden has been released from its stony prison! Run for your lives!

Oh, it gets WORSE!!! Michael Buratovich: The hind limb mesenchyme fails to express sonic hedgehog, which is required for the formation of the apical ectodermal ridge at the tip of the limb bud. Without the apical ectodermal ridge, the limb tissue fails to proliferate and dies.

Then there are the modern 2-legged snakes like pee wee myers and his brownnosing cult of mental midget followers.

Do all the 'holy trolls' use CAPITALS when arguing a point here ? I am just wondering do those who accept evolution spell out DARWIN in capitals when contributing to a creationist blogsite ??

I am wondering from a design perspective, what purpose these legs (which look vestigial) could have served? Surely if these legs were the result of design, they would serve some function. Do any cdesign proponentsists care to speculate as to the function of these legs?

If by “working on this” you mean “spinning the hell out of it”, then I agree.

Peter Henderson wrote: There will probably be something on their "news to note" tomorrow, I would imagine and a more elaborate article next week sometime. It'll be interesting to see what they come up with.

I am just wondering do those who accept evolution spell out DARWIN in capitals when contributing to a creationist blogsite ??

we never get the chance; all posts of any substantive content on creationist blogsites are immediately Expelled(tm).

Well, all the troll activity lately has finally convinced me there must be a Designer. I can't comprehend how evolution could have resulted in humans with the appallingly poor reasoning skills, the dedication to willful ingorance, the poor social skills, the fact denying ability, the deceitful behavior, the rampant paranoia and the tendencies toward self-destructive behavior exhibited by the anti-evolutionist crowd, so a Designer must have dunnit. I figure the Designer must have made anti-evolutionists as cautionary examples for the rest of us (His Chosen People) of what happens to people who refuse to use the brains He gave us (evidently via evolution). I also now believe in Hell. That is where the anti-evolutionists will eventually be expelled to, where they will have to sit in a pool of fire, finally being forced to try to come up with all the alternative evidence, testable hypotheses, research data and explanations they have wasted their lives promising to provide "later". Even with all eternity as their time limit and no evolutionists around to suppress their efforts, they will not accomplish anything useful.

You’ll need the uncensored version of the KJV. The KJV committee made some cuts after being threatened with legal action by Peter Irons acting on behalf of a Darwinist consortium who claimed that the snake portrayed in Genesis was copied from the “The Origin of Species” (the Darwinist bible)

— Carl

J. Biggs:

Peter Henderson wrote: There will probably be something on their "news to note" tomorrow, I would imagine and a more elaborate article next week sometime. It'll be interesting to see what they come up with.

I'm sure it will be one of those, "It's still just a snake." pieces of crap. AIG, DI and the like just know (because of their interpretation of scripture) that there aren't any transitional fossils (at least I hear that claim made a lot) and the easiest thing for them to do is to deny that this is a transitional fossil. Of course for those of us that accept the scientific explanation, all fossils represent transition.

You left one out.

6. That snake fossil was planted by satan to fool people.

Never mind that the devil must have a very boring life, wandering around planting zillions of fossils everywhere and hoping a tiny fraction are found by paleontologists. And that god is too busy or disinterested to smack him down for trying to mislead the faithful.

Many seem to have difficulty in transitioning from making discrete measurements of a pair of variables (such as time and distance of a moving object) to a continuous function. I wonder if many creationists would have a similar difficulty.

In ancient Jewish mythology the snake who tempted Eve had legs ! ! ! May be those sheep herders were onto something....

Marilyn: Well, all the troll activity lately has finally convinced me there must be a Designer. I can't comprehend how evolution could have resulted in humans with the appallingly poor reasoning skills, the dedication to willful ingorance, the poor social skills, the fact denying ability, the deceitful behavior, the rampant paranoia and the tendencies toward self-destructive behavior exhibited by the anti-evolutionist crowd, so a Designer must have dunnit. I figure the Designer must have made anti-evolutionists as cautionary examples for the rest of us (His Chosen People) of what happens to people who refuse to use the brains He gave us (evidently via evolution). I also now believe in Hell. That is where the anti-evolutionists will eventually be expelled to, where they will have to sit in a pool of fire, finally being forced to try to come up with all the alternative evidence, testable hypotheses, research data and explanations they have wasted their lives promising to provide "later". Even with all eternity as their time limit and no evolutionists around to suppress their efforts, they will not accomplish anything useful.

Reginald:

J. Biggs:

Peter Henderson wrote: There will probably be something on their "news to note" tomorrow, I would imagine and a more elaborate article next week sometime. It'll be interesting to see what they come up with.

I'm sure it will be one of those, "It's still just a snake." pieces of crap. AIG, DI and the like just know (because of their interpretation of scripture) that there aren't any transitional fossils (at least I hear that claim made a lot) and the easiest thing for them to do is to deny that this is a transitional fossil. Of course for those of us that accept the scientific explanation, all fossils represent transition.

Let's start a pool. I see 5 possible choices: 1. It's not really a snake at all! It's a completely different kind, glory be to Jesus for showing us the wide diversity of original kinds. 2. The legs are just a freak mutation that occured in one snake out of a million and are just evidence of the diseases (leg-generating diseases no less) that plagued all Creation after the Fall. 3. The 2-legged snake is wonderful evidence of ID anyway! How? Well, grumble grumble storble bleeb-blop, unintelligible... 4. The scientists make the silly assumption that because the legs were attached to the snake in the fossil that those legs belonged to the snake! The flood that laid down all the fossils killed millions of animals, it's very possible that these legs comes from a rodent that died near a snake (and then somehow fused into the snake's skeleton but... who knows) 5. Just flat out ignoring.

This is really trivial, but shouldn't the headline be, "A fossil snake with two legs"??

It's beginning to bug me.

Is this a leg pull or unintentional humour submitted by a creationist ? I would have to know more about this ‘Reg’ to guess either way…

You left one out. 6. That snake fossil was planted by satan to fool people. Never mind that the devil must have a very boring life, wandering around planting zillions of fossils everywhere and hoping a tiny fraction are found by paleontologists. And that god is too busy or disinterested to smack him down for trying to mislead the faithful.

MememicBottleneck:

Is this a leg pull or unintentional humour submitted by a creationist ? I would have to know more about this ‘Reg’ to guess either way…

My take is that Reg was being sarcastic. Sadly, he is probably very close to the truth. Many times here on PT I take a post as sarcasm/humor and it turns out to be some creotard being absolutely serious. It can be very difficult to tell the difference. Either way, it's a good chuckle.

In 1999, when I first became aware of organized creationism and ID, I was on faculty at a medical school in the Midwest, part of a very Catholic university (no, I'm not personally Catholic).

I happened to find an ancient creationism book from the 1950's in the basement of the university library. Foolishly, I failed to note the title or author. It was something long out of print; the author was a seminarian from Nebraska. The forward stated that it was expressly written to coincide with the hundredth anniversary of "Origin of Species".

Every standard creationist argument was in it to some degree. After all, there are only two lines of reasoning in ID/creationism -

1) Specious attempts to claim that biological evolution is "impossible" despite the evidence, e.g. false claims about thermodynamics, and

2) Convoluted attempts to deny that the most blatantly obvious evidence of evolution, such as the fossil record or observable events like the emergence of resistance to antibiotics, pesticides, and infectious microorganisms, actually are evidence for evolution.

That book was literally being written as molecular genetics was being discovered.

Fifty years later, the evidence for evolution is massively stronger. In fact, given what we now know about molecular biology, it is fair to say that it is totally impossible for evolution NOT to occur.

The perseverance of creationism is extraordinary.

It's really all about authoritarian politics. If humans definitively share common ancestry, then dehumanizing certain ethnic groups and denying their rights is more problematic. If Old Testament passages are not taken "literally", but read metaphorically or with interpretation (which is, of course, the practice of ALL traditions of Judaism, however orthodox, to some degree), then advocating savage punishments for harmless behaviors (while secretly indulging in them at what appears to be a greater frequency than that of the general population), or demanding uniform submission to arbitrary rituals instead of respecting freedom of conscience, is far less acceptable.

The real message of contemporary creationism is "I want to behave like a sadistic, authoritarian thug - or at least indulge in a lot of fantasies of being able to do so. I know that you won't let me do that under normal circumstances, so I'll desperately pretend that some magic power justifies me doing so".

Sorry to sound cynical, but that's what I think it's really all about.

Marilyn: Well, all the troll activity lately has finally convinced me there must be a Designer. I can't comprehend how evolution could have resulted in humans with the appallingly poor reasoning skills, the dedication to willful ingorance, the poor social skills, the fact denying ability, the deceitful behavior, the rampant paranoia and the tendencies toward self-destructive behavior exhibited by the anti-evolutionist crowd, so a Designer must have dunnit. I figure the Designer must have made anti-evolutionists as cautionary examples for the rest of us (His Chosen People) of what happens to people who refuse to use the brains He gave us (evidently via evolution). I also now believe in Hell. That is where the anti-evolutionists will eventually be expelled to, where they will have to sit in a pool of fire, finally being forced to try to come up with all the alternative evidence, testable hypotheses, research data and explanations they have wasted their lives promising to provide "later". Even with all eternity as their time limit and no evolutionists around to suppress their efforts, they will not accomplish anything useful.

harold: The perseverance of creationism is extraordinary. It's really all about authoritarian politics. If humans definitively share common ancestry, then dehumanizing certain ethnic groups and denying their rights is more problematic. If Old Testament passages are not taken "literally", but read metaphorically or with interpretation (which is, of course, the practice of ALL traditions of Judaism, however orthodox, to some degree), then advocating savage punishments for harmless behaviors (while secretly indulging in them at what appears to be a greater frequency than that of the general population), or demanding uniform submission to arbitrary rituals instead of respecting freedom of conscience, is far less acceptable. The real message of contemporary creationism is "I want to behave like a sadistic, authoritarian thug - or at least indulge in a lot of fantasies of being able to do so. I know that you won't let me do that under normal circumstances, so I'll desperately pretend that some magic power justifies me doing so". Sorry to sound cynical, but that's what I think it's really all about.

Harold: The real message of contemporary creationism is “I want to behave like a sadistic, authoritarian thug - or at least indulge in a lot of fantasies of being able to do so. I know that you won’t let me do that under normal circumstances, so I’ll desperately pretend that some magic power justifies me doing so”. Sorry to sound cynical, but that’s what I think it’s really all about.

Goebbels: “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it."

From my reading of this blog - is this creationist business purely an American issue ? I can see that the Discovery Institute wants to roll back the world as it was before the Enlightenment but can they really accomplish anything in the long run ?? The trouble is everytime the the trolls are acknowledged - the discussion ends up talking about religion - or specifically the Bible according to the translation of
the Literal Looney and not science. I am not a scientist - and it is fun to 'rag the trolls' when they pop here (we could try 'whack-a-troll' perhaps) but perhaps they are best left alone and not encouraged....Still, I know it is hard to be silent when they come in here...now where is my metaphorical hammer...

Actually, Romartus, a troll who shall not be named from OKC, rarely talks religion and instead displays his overwhelming ignorance of science and then resorts to grade school name calling (often in the same comment). He's already posted once on this thread, but I'll let you figure out who he is.

I do agree that creationism is largely an American phenomenon. Apparently Europe had enough of the religious/political interference with science back in the dark ages and learned from their mistakes. The fundamentalists here still try to export their ignorance overseas so keep your eyes open.

If the information at the head of this page is drawn from a Young Earth Creationist site, check it six times. In this case, it looks legit., eh?

Yes, the oldest known fossils of snake-like form are from the Cretaceous, (of Morroco) - on my last reading of the matter. Anyone got anything different? (I see there is some question about whether this biped is properly a snake. The tribulations of taxonomists.)

Those HOX genes are interesting. I quoted SCIENCEDAILY on another page here quite recently, and the Page Provider censored the post containing the quote. HOX genes in ancient fish -before the age of legs. Pity modern science and Common Descent Darwinism don't agree, isn't it?

Ah, exactly which part of, "On thy belly shalt thou go", addressed to, say, TYRANNOSAURUS, does this discovery discredit? Remember, God is timeless, and he does things sometimes long before their purpose is revealed. But, strangely, there are many snakes that leave little or no fossil record - in fact, less fossil record than Man, himself! Snakes are a palaeontological enigma.

Which part of that old creation myth, that Nature and all it's associated gods created itself - Hard-Line Common Descent-Darwinism - does this discovery support? Take Common Descent literally, think a moment, and- hey presto: YOU ARE A TALKING SERPENT! Just several times removed, down the track far enough to make it sound rational.

Give the world out there a break.

Seems Philip Bruce Heywood is unfamiliar with HOX genes. Oh well, nothing really much lost there. HOX genes and duplication have allowed these well conserved genes to be re-used for other developmental purposes.

Funny how gene duplication and diversification, argued to be relevant aspects of evolutionary complexity are indeed found to be such. Also, regulatory variations around the HOX genes have helped generate many other cool features. A powerful testimony to evolution.

J. Biggs: Actually, Romartus, a troll who shall not be named from OKC, rarely talks religion and instead displays his overwhelming ignorance of science and then resorts to grade school name calling (often in the same comment). He's already posted once on this thread, but I'll let you figure out who he is. I do agree that creationism is largely an American phenomenon. Apparently Europe had enough of the religious/political interference with science back in the dark ages and learned from their mistakes. The fundamentalists here still try to export their ignorance overseas so keep your eyes open.

These evolutionists and their paper mache projects are truly amazing! Fom Piltdown Man to Archeopter to Lucy, they sure know their special effects! It's no wonder why their kind seem to dominate the entertainment and fashion industries!

These evolutionists and their paper mache projects are truly amazing! Fom Piltdown Man to Archeopter to Lucy, they sure know their special effects! It’s no wonder why their kind seem to dominate the entertainment and fashion industries!

— Charlemagne

PvM:

These evolutionists and their paper mache projects are truly amazing! Fom Piltdown Man to Archeopter to Lucy, they sure know their special effects! It’s no wonder why their kind seem to dominate the entertainment and fashion industries!

— Charlemagne

Piltdown Man was a hoax as many scientists had already expected. Archaeopteryx and Lucy are great examples of fossils, one of a transitional fossil, the other one of a humanoid. What's your argument? Or am I presuming too much here?

Well, I’ve never seen a transitional fossil but I’ve seen paper mache and other sculptures. How do I know they just don’t make all these fossils in their basements and promote then P.T. Barnum style?

These evolutionists and their paper mache projects are truly amazing! Fom Piltdown Man to Archeopter to Lucy, they sure know their special effects! It’s no wonder why their kind seem to dominate the entertainment and fashion industries!

How do I know they just don’t make all these fossils in their basements and promote then P.T. Barnum style?

PvM:

Well, I’ve never seen a transitional fossil but I’ve seen paper mache and other sculptures. How do I know they just don’t make all these fossils in their basements and promote then P.T. Barnum style?

Aha, an argument of personal incredulity. Well I am glad that you agree that God does not exists either since you have not seen Him either. Funny how such arguments from ignorance seem to be the best ID creationism has to offer.

I know God exists because of my faith in the authority of His Word. Do you claim that the “science” of evolutionism is a matter of faith as well? If not, my original point still stands.

Charlemagne: I know God exists because of my faith in the authority of His Word. Do you claim that the "science" of evolutionism is a matter of faith as well? If not, my original point still stands.

I've been waiting for this one for a long time!

doov

I know God exists because of my faith in the authority of His Word. Do you claim that the “science” of evolutionism is a matter of faith as well? If not, my original point still stands.

Philip wrote:

"HOX genes in ancient fish -before the age of legs. Pity modern science and Common Descent Darwinism don’t agree, isn’t it?"

Man, I don't know where you are getting your information from, but once again, you are sadly mistaken. Hox genes predate the origin of animals, let alone chordates, let alone vertebrates, let alone fish, let alone tetrapods. What on earth gave you the idea that no one thinks that Hox genes were found in ancient fish? You should really read more than Wikipedia and Science Daily. DIdn't you even read post 150330? Are you incapable of learning anything?

Even if you were completely ignorant of all of the research on Hox genes in fruit files and other arthropods, you should still know better than to try to make such an absurd claim on this blog. Pity modern science and modern evolutionary biology don't agree with your preconceived notions.

Now, why do you think that evolution needs information in the form of photons processed by the magnetic field? Where did the information come from? Who put it there? For what purpose? What is the goal? Was it God? Why did she do it? Why aren't random mutations and natural selection enough? Why do you need a quantum computer? How can the tree of life carry out photosynthesis? Please enlighten us with your profound insights.

Ah, exactly which part of, “On thy belly shalt thou go”, addressed to, say, TYRANNOSAURUS, does this discovery discredit? Remember, God is timeless, and he does things sometimes long before their purpose is revealed. But, strangely, there are many snakes that leave little or no fossil record - in fact, less fossil record than Man, himself! Snakes are a palaeontological enigma.

Charlemagne said: Well, I’ve never seen a transitional fossil...

Science Avenger:

Charlemagne said: Well, I’ve never seen a transitional fossil...

And you think this has bearing on whether they exist, why again?

Science Avenger:

Charlemagne said: Well, I’ve never seen a transitional fossil...

And you think this has bearing on whether they exist, why again?

Charlemagne:

Science Avenger:

Charlemagne said: Well, I’ve never seen a transitional fossil...

And you think this has bearing on whether they exist, why again?

Well, you've never seen Jesus rise from the dead, and you use this as the reason to disbelive this happened? Right?

Charlemagne said: Well, I’ve never seen a transitional fossil…

The original ancestor of the fossil animal with two legs was perhaps even an ancestor with four legs.

There must have been a population of these animals to have a fossil find.

The population was robust enough to survive and flourish.

Nothing here is inconsistent with creation of an original kind which has common descendants with variation within a narrow range of adaptation eventually including the modern snakes.

Well, I’ve never seen a transitional fossil but I’ve seen paper mache and other sculptures. How do I know they just don’t make all these fossils in their basements and promote then P.T. Barnum style?

Charlemagne guessed: Well, you’ve never seen Jesus rise from the dead, and you use this as the reason to disbelive this happened? Right?

Pity modern science and Common Descent Darwinism don’t agree, isn’t it?

raven:

How do I know they just don’t make all these fossils in their basements and promote then P.T. Barnum style?

This guy is lost in the age of Disco. Everyone knows fossil making was outsourced to China decades ago.

raven:

How do I know they just don’t make all these fossils in their basements and promote then P.T. Barnum style?

This guy is lost in the age of Disco. Everyone knows fossil making was outsourced to China decades ago.

@Stanton - LOL :-)

Romartus: Is this a leg pull or unintentional humour submitted by a creationist ? I would have to know more about this 'Reg' to guess either way...

I don't know whether Richard Simons is going to take on leading reptile expert Professor R. Shine, Sydney University here in Australia - who, in an authoritative reference I have here in my hand, says that the classification of snakes is a mess, largely due to a lack of fossils, plus much more. Most of the remainder of these 'expert' contributors simply delete any actual factual input, then claim it doesn't exist. Typical example is the (previously censored)HOX genes quote via SCIENCEDAILY from NATURE or some such authority - don't quote me, look it up yourself. Toolkit for building legs, found to be present in a legless organism, long before the era of legs. Waiting for the environmental conditions calling for legs, to trigger the toolkit into action. Scarcely natural selection that's doing the toolkit emplacement, is it? But if you stop and think a moment, that's how it must have happened, for most major modifications. Except with snakes and a few other organisms - they're different. In fact, the organisms involved in the curse, all but show evidence of Darwinian-type degenerative change.

PvM has seen evolution in action. Only the word, evolution, in this case, has its meaning doctored, or the word, species, has its meaning doctored, so that the species are evolving, right now. Yes, well, wheat existed for a long time, and I thought it was a species; rye was around for a long time, and I thought it was a species; then they sprung triticale on us, and I'm told it's halfway between the two in a sort of a way, and yet you harvest triticale, plant triticale, and you get triticale. That apparently means that a dog, given sufficient time, will get rid of its dog and become a cat. Just through the degenerative mutational change that will eventually render the higher animals deceased and defunct, at the rate it's currently going on. Some people have observed this upwards progression. It's called, Common Descent Evolution.

Give us a break.

Reginald:

Romartus: Is this a leg pull or unintentional humour submitted by a creationist ? I would have to know more about this 'Reg' to guess either way...

Oh don't worry I was being very sarcastic - I was suggesting the ways that creationists will try to write this off. AiG is my favourite for this sort of thing, their News to Note every Saturday is the ultimate example of bad bad bad bad science - can you imagine how backwards humans would still be if anytime we discovered something we tried so desperately to bend over backwards to make everything fit an insane ID theory?

Philip Bruce Heywood: PvM has seen evolution in action. Only the word, evolution, in this case, has its meaning doctored, or the word, species, has its meaning doctored, so that the species are evolving, right now. Yes, well, wheat existed for a long time, and I thought it was a species; rye was around for a long time, and I thought it was a species; then they sprung triticale on us, and I'm told it's halfway between the two in a sort of a way, and yet you harvest triticale, plant triticale, and you get triticale. That apparently means that a dog, given sufficient time, will get rid of its dog and become a cat. Just through the degenerative mutational change that will eventually render the higher animals deceased and defunct, at the rate it's currently going on. Some people have observed this upwards progression. It's called, Common Descent Evolution.

Corrections to my previous post. The deleting that is done by (self-proclaimed) 'expert' contributors is of factual materials presented by myself. Usually it is a mental deletion, not a physical deletion.

Organisms currently showing potent, Darwinian-style morphing - e.g., the microscopic agents of sickness and death - are in many cases showing improvement, not degeneration. There was, however, major degeneration in the case of 'the serpent' - whatever that was, or they were. Today there is certainly plenty of observable, Darwinian- style change going on - amongst agents of sickness and impoverishment - all of it harmful to higher life!

I don’t know whether Richard Simons is going to take on leading reptile expert Professor R. Shine, Sydney University here in Australia - who, in an authoritative reference I have here in my hand, says that the classification of snakes is a mess, largely due to a lack of fossils, plus much more.

Yes, well, wheat existed for a long time, and I thought it was a species; rye was around for a long time, and I thought it was a species; then they sprung triticale on us, and I’m told it’s halfway between the two in a sort of a way, and yet you harvest triticale, plant triticale, and you get triticale. That apparently means that a dog, given sufficient time, will get rid of its dog and become a cat.

Just through the degenerative mutational change that will eventually render the higher animals deceased and defunct, at the rate it’s currently going on. Some people have observed this upwards progression. It’s called, Common Descent Evolution. Give us a break.

Philip,

Thanks for answering my questions. Now I can see exactly how committed you are to helping others understand your position. I know I'm convinced, I just don't know what I'm convinced of.

Keith - "The original ancestor of the fossil animal with two legs was perhaps even an ancestor with four legs."

Keith insists that the two new gaps be filled with truly intermediate forms, fossils characterized by 3 and 1 leg(s), respectively. Unless these forms are found Keith will persist in believing in the fixity of species.

AiG is my favourite for this sort of thing, their News to Note every Saturday is the ultimate example of bad bad bad bad science - can you imagine how backwards humans would still be if anytime we discovered something we tried so desperately to bend over backwards to make everything fit an insane ID theory?

The findings are controversial. Some evolutionists claim that snakes came out of the sea, from something like a mosasaur. Others insist on a land-based origin. The controversy still rages. In other words, the fossils are open to interpretation. Features that one group claim are evidence for an evolutionary relationship the other group say are “convergent” (not due to common inheritance, they just appear to be). In other words, the new fossil, despite all the hype, proves nothing. It will be proclaimed by some as another example of a transitional fossil, but transitional with what? They are unable to agree. Bible believers should be wary of rushing in with comments about the serpent in Genesis. This fossil was probably formed in Noah’s Flood, hence the creature it represents was in existence some 1600 years after the cursing of the serpent to crawl on its belly. In short, a snake with “legs” neither threatens the creation model nor is any evidence of a genetic information-adding evolutionary transition. Now what about the connection between this snake and the serpent of Genesis 3, which was cursed in Genesis 3:14 to crawl on its belly? As we’ve noted previously, fossilized snake forms are most likely from Noah’s Flood, more than a thousand years after the events in Genesis 3. Furthermore, Scripture isn’t specific about the anatomy of the Eden serpent nor if the curse on it applied to all “serpents” or just one.

Well, if you don't mind my tangent from whack-a-troll, I think it's dead cool that they've found (another?) two-legged snake. (No jokes about Washington DC/Brussels/Capital of your choice being awash with them).

I do have a meta observation on whack-a-troll. I have a great many strange friends and many of them believe in strange things. One is convinced that all the evils of the last 300 years are the result of the Jewish Banking Conspiracy. One thing that is going on here is quite easy to understand in evo psych terms (much as I mistrust evo psych). Humans are really, really good at pattern recognition. It has saved the skin of many of our ancestors and continues to save the skin of people fighting armed conflicts, etc. But our pattern recognition abilities are so sensitive that they give false positives, and too many people are crap at filtering out the nonsense from their own thoughts. After all, this is not much of a handicap in terms of producing children and raising them to childbearing age, which is all that impacts our evolution. So on the on hand, we have a bunch of people who see patterns which either do not exist or are purely coincidental.
On the other hand, we have a strong need to be members of the tribe/clan. So when people hear of other people who share the same false pattern recognition (or something close enough), they'll naturally form a group. And they'll support each other against the hostility of outsiders.
So right there we have a simple model explaining creationists, astrologers, homeopaths, anti-vaccinationists, Holocaust "revisionists," certain religious fundies, extreme right-wing groups, extreme left-wing groups, people who admire Mark Steyn, etc.
But even among these groups of the generally deluded, there will be some exceptional individuals. Some will be persons of varying degrees of charisma who live off of the authority they can get over other people but are too incompetent/stupid/etc to get this authority in mainstream society. They can much more easily establish themselves in small groups of people whose critical faculties are not all that great to begin with.
And then there are the true nutters, who can barely get along at all in society as a whole, but who by adopting the subgroup's cause, however incoherently, can attain a degree of acceptance.
We see some of those in this thread.

This fish fossil is exciting. However, I just finished reading "The Making of the Fittest: DNA and the Ultimate Forensic Record of Evolution." Prior to that I had no idea of the DNA evidence for evolution. Given the DNA evidence alone any sane and semi-intelligent person would be unable to deny evolution. The fossils and primates were enough for me, but the DNA evidence is just amazing.

I'm new to this blog, but have a question: is evolution generative or degenerative?

I know it is the creationism side of things to say that everything is leading toward a 'purpose,' but doesn't evolution also suggest the bettering of a species?

If this snake was aquatic, then loosing the legs would be good, but are we also finding a movement toward a flattening of the tail sea serpent style among other fossils of the time and location?

shadrach: I'm new to this blog, but have a question: is evolution generative or degenerative? I know it is the creationism side of things to say that everything is leading toward a 'purpose,' but doesn't evolution also suggest the bettering of a species? If this snake was aquatic, then loosing the legs would be good, but are we also finding a movement toward a flattening of the tail sea serpent style among other fossils of the time and location?

shadrach: I'm new to this blog, but have a question: is evolution generative or degenerative?

I know it is the creationism side of things to say that everything is leading toward a 'purpose,' but doesn't evolution also suggest the bettering of a species?

If this snake was aquatic, then loosing [sic] the legs would be good, but are we also finding a movement toward a flattening of the tail sea serpent style among other fossils of the time and location?

Charlemagne is pole-greaser. Compare comment #150424 with pg's comment on the Nigersaurus post.

fnxtr: Charlemagne is pole-greaser. Compare comment #150424 with pg's comment on the Nigersaurus post.

fnxtr: Charlemagne is pole-greaser. Compare comment #150424 with pg's comment on the Nigersaurus post.

Charlemagne:

fnxtr: Charlemagne is pole-greaser. Compare comment #150424 with pg's comment on the Nigersaurus post.

And you know this how? I checked out that thread. The pole-greaser guy also called BS on the evolutionists fossil side show. Don't you think it's possible that more than one person has caught on to this charade?

Charlemagne said: Don’t you think it’s possible that more than one person has caught on to this charade?

raven:

Carl being amusing: The 3rd chapter of Genesis, the first verse is quite clear on this Now the serpent with two legs was more subtle than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made.

Ummm, Carl, I don't think this is the smart ass serpent from the Garden of Eden. 1. This snake is only 33 inches long. 2. It has a tiny head. I doubt if it's brain is big enough to carry on long conversations with humans and there is no room for a mammalian style vocal track.

did the dinasaurs was leving with the fuck haw did dinasaurs gaT in the fUCk i want to fuck tou b.

Well just one things to say... There might have been a snake found with two legs, but a whale also has "legs" too... it dosent mean they are walking... No where in the bible have I read where it said "serpent you will have no legs", but rather "upon thy belly shalt thou go".

Also if you are refering to the evolutionary process... evolution itself does not disprove anything. We can say 'bob' built a car including all the components for it to drive. Just because someone looks under the hood and figures out the different components and how it runs does not mean bob did not build the car. God created the universe and all the mechanisms we know as "laws", "theories", and such.

Facts do not "speak" for themselves, but are how we interpret them with our presumptions. You pressume there is no God and everything started from nothing; therefore, you interpret facts that way.

If everything evolves and evolves and then where did it first start? A big bang which was no "bang" at all but rather a "singularity" that scientist cannot even define because it defys their current understanding of physics?

Jason said: Facts do not "speak" for themselves, but are how we interpret them with our presumptions. You pressume there is no God and everything started from nothing; therefore, you interpret facts that way.

If everything evolves and evolves and then where did it first start? A big bang which was no "bang" at all but rather a "singularity" that scientist cannot even define because it defys their current understanding of physics?

Facts do not “speak” for themselves, but are how we interpret them with our presumptions. You presume there is no God and everything started from nothing; therefore, you interpret facts that way.