Did Reptiles Evolve?

[Dale]

Creationists often say that it is not possible to picture how evolution takes place. It is all just too complicated.

Last week I heard a lecture on snakes. Snakes have teeth pointing backwards. This makes it harder for their prey to escape. If an animal caught in the snake's teeth tries to escape it just rams the snake's teeth deeper into its own body.

It is easy to picture how this feature came about. A snake, or the ancestor of modern snakes, was born with this feature of teeth tilted backwards. When the first individual or brood hatched out with this feature it would have looked like a birth defect. Nevertheless, it turned out to be a positive adaptation and it spread through the population.

Another feature of pit vipers, a major category of poisonous snakes, is heat sensitive spots on their faces. Again, it is not that hard to picture how this came about. Having a sensitive spot, or a pair of them, might seem to be a defect. In this case, heat sensitive spots help snakes to locate prey, and may possibly make them more aware of a predator as well. Once again, something that might have looked like a defect at first glance turned out to have value. The trait spread and those who had it survived.

Other adaptations involve behavior. The Eastern Mud Snake has an underside that looks something like a rattlesnake. When threatened, the Eastern Mud Snake turns over, often scaring a predator away. A number of animals play dead as a defense and this adaptation is similar, but not identical. It is possible to understand how this evolved.

Where did snakes come from? A lizard without legs starts to look a lot like a snake. It may not have happened all at once. A lizard may have hatched out with short, stumpy legs. When this creature did okay, the trend to shorter legs continued, combined with the development of slithering muscles.

 

[Dale]

See also my previous thread

Coevolution In Reptiles - Christian Forums

http://www.christianforums.com/t3224056

 

[Hydra009]

Where did snakes come from? A lizard without legs starts to look a lot like a snake.

Yes, they certainly do.

Here are some examples:

Caecilians (amphibian)
Glass lizards (lizard)
Pygopodidae (lizard) [note to self - it's really hard to find these guys on the web]

And coincidence of coincidences, some snake species still develop atavistic limbs - a weird thing to have for species that don't share any ancestry with their limbed reptilian cousins.

It may not have happened all at once. A lizard may have hatched out with short, stumpy legs. When this creature did okay, the trend to shorter legs continued, combined with the development of slithering muscles.

That's pretty much what probably happened. Here's a ancient snake with legs, believe it or not - from Jerusalem. Scientsts are debating whether or not it ate dust.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/680116.stm
Another source

 

[USincognito]

Where did snakes come from? A lizard without legs starts to look a lot like a snake. It may not have happened all at once. A lizard may have hatched out with short, stumpy legs. When this creature did okay, the trend to shorter legs continued, combined with the development of slithering muscles.

Even better, they just co-opted the movement muscles they already had. All fish, long bodied amphibians and long bodied repliles (frogs and turtles move slightly differently) move the same way - side to side. The loss of legs, especially in, say, a marshy or semi-aquatic environment wouldn't necessarily effect locomotion as long as sufficient traction/surface tension could be maintained.

 

[Aron-Ra]

One of my favorite taxonomic arguments against creationism concerns reptiles.

Is the short-tailed goanna related to the Perentie and all other Australian goannas?

Are all Australian goannas related to each other and to the other monitor lizards of Indonesia and Africa?
Are today's varanids related to the giant goannas of Australia's past?
Are terrestrial monitors related to the mosasaurs of the Cretaceous?
Are Varanoids related to any other Anguimorphs including snakes?
Are any Anguimorphs also related to scincomorphs and geckos?
Are all Scleroglossa also related to iguanids and other squamates?
Are all of squamata related to each other and all other lepidosaurs?
Are all lepidosaurs related to placodonts and plesiosaurs?
Are Lepidosauromorphs related to archosaurs and other diapsids?
Are all diapsids related to anapsids, or synapsid "reptiles" like dimetrodon?
Are all reptiles related to each other and all other amniotes?
Are all amniotes related to each other and to all other tetrapods?
Are all tetrapods related to each other and to all other vertebrates?
........and so on.​

Which of these are related? Which of these are created? ​

 

[AV1611VET]

Creationists often say that it is not possible to picture how evolution takes place. It is all just too complicated.

Either that --- or they didn't.

 

[Aron-Ra]

Either that --- or they didn't.

EIther that, or who didn't what?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Either that --- or they didn't.

Well... yes. Either A or not A. It's a fundamental logical axiom. Your point?

AV1611VET, do you understand the concept of Evolution, even if you do not agree that it occured? I mean this as a question from one curious learner to another.

 

[AV1611VET]

AV1611VET, do you understand the concept of Evolution, even if you do not agree that it occured? I mean this as a question from one curious learner to another.

I'm going to say NO to that --- I do not understand the mechanics of it.

There are two things that I think I do understand about it, though:

• It took billions of years to arrive at today's paradigm.
• The order of appearance of things is based on symbiotic relationships with their predecessors (grandfathering). IOW, the sun before the earth, land animals before birds, etc.

 

[Pesto]

I'm going to say NO to that --- I do not understand the mechanics of it.

Would you be interested in actually learning about it? After all, the best way to refute something is to first study and understand it.

the sun before the earth

FYI, this doesn't have anything to do with evolution, a biological theory, but rather cosmology.

 

[Aron-Ra]

I'm going to say NO to that --- I do not understand the mechanics of it.

Alright, fair enough. What if I could explain it to you?

Let's start with something simple; do you know how one "race" of people could diversify to become so many visibly distinguishable demes?

Every child of every family in every generation is born with an average of 128 inherited mutations right at the point of conception. These usually account for little more than the differences we see between two siblings of the same parents. Were it not for these mutations, every pair of siblings would look like twins. Are you with me so far?

Everyone accumulates additional mutations as their cells continue to replicate, so that even twins between to grow apart as they age. These mutations are often unique, which is why the people who have them are unique too. Otherwise, we'd all be clones of each other.

Sometimes, some of these new mutations aquired as we live are passed on to our children too. In a single large population, minor variations like this tend to be restricted amid several generations because the continued influence of the parent gene pool can establish the norm of what that population will be like. But if a smaller sub-group becomes isolated from the larger gene pool, as primitive cultures used to do before the age of rapid transit globalization, then traits particular only to certain families begin to emerge; so that in just a few generations it becomes possible to tell what culture a given person hails from. Do you accept that this is true? It doesn't make any sense to try and argue against something if you don't even understand it. So is there anything more about this one small fraction of the evolutionary process which you need to understand? I'd be delighted to answer any questions you have as best I can, so don't be bashful about that.

 

[AV1611VET]

Would you be interested in actually learning about it?

No --- I live by one major concept I learned when it comes to debating.

And I am just quoting the concept, I am not ad homineming anyone here.

• Never argue with an idiot - he will drag you down to his level, then beat you to death with experience.

You'll very seldom see me use evolution to try to defeat evolution.

I leave it to Scripture to back up my points, and if Scripture can't do it, it's not worth discussing.

After all, the best way to refute something is to first study and understand it.

The only thing I've really applied myself to understanding is the New Age Movement, since I feel that is my calling. And even then I only have a superficial knowledge of it.

 

[Aron-Ra]

I leave it to Scripture to back up my points, and if Scripture can't do it, it's not worth discussing.

So you're limiting your knowledge only to what little was known when your scriptures were written thousands of years ago?! Are you really unable or unwilling to grow beyond that?

 

[Pesto]

No --- I live by one major concept I learned when it comes to debating.

And I am just quoting the concept, I am not ad homineming anyone here.

• Never argue with an idiot - he will drag you down to his level, then beat you to death with experience.

I'm not looking to argue with you.

You'll very seldom see me use evolution to try to defeat evolution.

Well, you shouldn't try to "use evolution to defeat evolution." What you should do is look at the idea and show inconsistencies and non sequiters. If you don't have a proper understanding of the idea to begin with you won't be able to do that.

I leave it to Scripture to back up my points, and if Scripture can't do it, it's not worth discussing.

I think that there is plenty that scripture does not apply to that is worth discussing, but that's not what this thread is about.

 

[AV1611VET]

I'd be delighted to answer any questions you have as best I can, so don't be bashful about that.

Two things here:

1. Every single one of these pictures are pictures of homo sapiens who adapted to their environment.
2. We were not meant to look like this in the beginning.

What you have shown me is a pictorial testimony of the effects of the Fall.

 

[AV1611VET]

So you're limiting your knowledge only to what little was known when your scriptures were written thousands of years ago?! Are you really unable or unwilling to grow beyond that?

I'll learn as much science as needed to live my life the best I can, but I will not use it to contradict where I came from in the first place.

 

[PacificPandeist]

No --- I live by one major concept I learned when it comes to debating.

And I am just quoting the concept, I am not ad homineming anyone here.

• Never argue with an idiot - he will drag you down to his level, then beat you to death with experience.

You'll very seldom see me use evolution to try to defeat evolution.

I leave it to Scripture to back up my points, and if Scripture can't do it, it's not worth discussing.



The only thing I've really applied myself to understanding is the New Age Movement, since I feel that is my calling. And even then I only have a superficial knowledge of it.

Scripture doesn't really contradict evolution at all.... it speaks allegorically about what the entity (God) did, but is it not true that God can choose any means to create that God wishes?

Is it not within God's power to become the Universe via a Big Bang, and to wait patiently while the laws God set forth governing the Universe caused life to form, and to evolve, and to eventually come to intelligence and civilization? And is it not also within God's power to allow our primitive and unknowing ancestors a simplistic understanding of this Creation, until they discovered for themselves the most ingenious mechanism by which God became these things we see before us every day?

//// Pacific PanDeist

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm not looking to argue with you.

My single biggest [natural] obstacle to believing in evolution is the amount of time evolution requires to have brought this universe to where it is today.

 

[Pesto]

I'll learn as much science as needed to live my life the best I can, but I will not use it to contradict where I came from in the first place.

I'm not asking you to believe it. Only understand it.

I feel I have a fairly good understanding of YEC, but I do not believe that it is accurate.

 

[Aron-Ra]

Two things here:

1. Every single one of these pictures are pictures of homo sapiens who adapted to their environment.
2. We were not meant to look like this in the beginning.

How do you know what we were "meant" to look like? And while we're on that subject, what were we all supposed to look like?

What you have shown me is a pictorial testimony of the effects of the Fall.

Such is your assertion. But I asked you very specific questions, and I am still awaiting your answers to them. Do you understand and accept what I have explained or do you not? And if not, why not?