Snake Legs and Evolution
Today we have two articles to feature on the subject of snakes. There is a bit of overlap, but not all that much. No need to get the heebie jeebies, these are about genetics, biology, and fossils. It is amazing that Darwinists claim that loss of features is evidence for onward and upward evolution. One of these ideas is about snakes losing their legs.
Some evolutionists think that snakes may have come from lizards and lost their legs. That may seem good at first glance, but anyone who wants to dig into science and logic will see that there are many changes necessary to bring this about. Snakes are very different from lizards, and the expected similarities are nonexistent. In addition, genetics thwarts evolution (genetics was initiated by Gregor Mendel, peas be upon him). Again, losing features is the opposite of evolution; no new genetic information has been added.
Great, now we can continue. Some apparatchiks in the Darwin Party are declaring a fossil to be evidence of evolution. However, it raises a passel of questions and provides no evidence. Scientists are assuming evolution to prove evolution, and they "see" it where there is no reason to believe it has been happening. The fossil record is not friendly to evolution, old son. In both of these articles we see evidence against evolution because life was created recently and without consulting Darwin.
 |
| Credit: PIXNIO |
To finish reading this first article, slither on over to "Snakes losing legs is not evolution!" Be sure to come back for the second installment, you savvy that?Evolutionary theory describes the origin of snakes very differently than the Bible. According to the Bible, the snake was “more crafty than any other beast of the field” made by God (Genesis 3:1). In Genesis 3:14 the snake has to move on its belly after God had cursed it, meaning that snakes could possibly have had limbs before the Fall. According to evolution, snakes are an order of reptiles which are related to all other species of animals, going back millions of years.“Evolution for Skeptics” is a blog written by evolutionary biologist Christopher Emerling, who studies genomic adaptations in vertebrates at the University of Montpellier, France. He says he believes in God. His blog seeks to presents evidence for evolution to those in the broader religious community who are skeptical about evolutionary theory, such as biblical creationists. Emerling also claims to have been exposed to creationist teachings for most of his life. Nevertheless, as this article will demonstrate, there are serious shortcomings with his ideas about how claw gene ‘remnants’ supposedly point to legs in snake ancestors. The evidence for loss of legs in snakes makes better sense according to biblical creation.
Great, now we can continue. Some apparatchiks in the Darwin Party are declaring a fossil to be evidence of evolution. However, it raises a passel of questions and provides no evidence. Scientists are assuming evolution to prove evolution, and they "see" it where there is no reason to believe it has been happening. The fossil record is not friendly to evolution, old son. In both of these articles we see evidence against evolution because life was created recently and without consulting Darwin.
I responded to the issue of snake legs on September 1, but the issue came up again as a result of a new fossil discovery. The most obvious concern related to the question of evolution is to keep in mind that loss of some structure—no matter what the structure—is not evolution. Darwin’s theory requires the gain of new structures, or modification of existing organs. Many paleontologists assume evolution when analyzing fossils, and thus interpret the evidence from a Darwinian worldview. For example, instead of letting the evidence speak for itself, the authors stated that these “new fossils help answer longstanding questions on the origins of snakes, such as how they lost their limbs and evolved their highly specialized skulls.”
The authors of The Conversation article just quoted – Michael Caldwell, Professor of Vertebrate Paleontology at the University of Alberta, and Alessandro Palci, Research Associate in Evolutionary Biology at Flinders University – should have known better. A paper in Nature in 2006 by ApesteguÃa and Zaher made some of the same mistakes. All four scientists need to take their evolutionary glasses off and explore other viable possibilities and interpretations for the fossil without jumping to conclusions.To read the rest, click on "Have Snakes Lost Their Legs?" If you want some more snake stuff, another pair of articles can be found at "Snake Legs and a Double-Header"