Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I said Late Cretaceous because Gen. 3:14 (apparently) indicates the immediate loss of legs for every serpent and ancient snakes that had legs lived around 90 mya.Thanks a lot.
Please spell it out (just the number would be fine) and plug it into Jpark's statement to see if it makes any sense.
I said Late Cretaceous because Gen. 3:14 (apparently) indicates the immediate loss of legs for every serpent and ancient snakes that had legs lived around 90 mya.
ancient snakes leg - Google Search
OK. Interesting.
I never know why would ancient snake lose its leg in the process of evolution. What environmental pressure would cause that?
It's apparently an adaptation to living underground. Many burrowing reptiles and amphibians are legless, including snakes, amphisbaenians, caecilians, aistopods, lysorophians, etc.I never know why would ancient snake lose its leg in the process of evolution. What environmental pressure would cause that?
It certainly doesn't explain ALL limbless vertebrates, unless you want to argue that all the above-mentioned species led Adam and Eve into sin.It seems Gen 3:14 gives a much better reason for the change.
It's apparently an adaptation to living underground. Many burrowing reptiles and amphibians are legless, including snakes, amphisbaenians, caecilians, aistopods, lysorophians, etc.
It certainly doesn't explain ALL limbless vertebrates, unless you want to argue that all the above-mentioned species led Adam and Eve into sin.
I didn't say cave-dwelling animals. I said ground-burrowers. Regardless, I think if you did the stats, you'd realize that the number of legless ground-burrowers is much higher than would be predicted by random chance alone.It should be a very weak argument. If possible, we should have a statistics on all cave-dwelling animals and see how many of them have legs.
I guess you've never seen a caecilian or a legless lizard burrow with its snout, then. Being legless is apparently highly adaptive, as it has apparently evolved several times independently. And we know that snakes evolved from legged ancestors because we see snakes with legs in the fossil record.Also, I would have hard time to imagine that legless animal likes to dig a hole to live in. The argument should be in reverse: Because they are legless, so they prefer to live in a (existing) hole. In fact, if you think about it, everything likes to live in a hole, including human.
With respect, your understanding of the subject appears... weak, at best.This is just one example. The more I think about taking the environmental pressure as a force to push evolution, the less creditable the idea becomes to me.
That's the sort of question that inspires what Stephen J. Gould called "Just-so stories".
It is one thing to have evidence that an evolutionary change occurred. It is quite a different thing to figure out why it occurred.
We would need to know a lot more about the environment this snake lived in when it was alive.
I didn't say cave-dwelling animals. I said ground-burrowers. Regardless, I think if you did the stats, you'd realize that the number of legless ground-burrowers is much higher than would be predicted by random chance alone.
I guess you've never seen a caecilian burrow, then. Or a worm. Being legless is apparently highly adaptive, as it has evolved several times independently.
With respect, your understanding of the subject appears... weak, at best.
You need to think think this through. If you say worms are a different created kind, you are saying they were created legless because it is a really good design for living underground.I have no problem to admit that. But for the very limited number of cases I have considered, none of them convinced me yet.
I thought about burrowing worms. My sense is that snake and worms are really two different "kind". One could not be used to argue about the case of the other.
Um, I read Genesis. It's quite clearly English.
Bingo.You need to think think this through. If you say worms are a different created kind, you are saying they were created legless because it is a really good design for living underground.
You need to think think this through. If you say worms are a different created kind, you are saying they were created legless because it is a really good design for living underground.
For someone who claims to be a teacher, you certainly don't show much interest in learning.I am not sure (pretty curious) how does an earth worm make a burrow. But I think a snake won't do the same. I will not compare snake with any worm. Worms live in a hole. Snake only sleep in a hole.
Snake fossils indicate a change from legged to legless? If it is not made by God's word, I don't know why should the change take place. Evolution has no reason do that.
For someone who claims to be a teacher, you certainly don't show much interest in learning.
Irrelevant questions <> hard questionsThis is your usual way to avoid further hard questions: thrown out some junk statement.
You did it.
Has anyone considered the possibility that the years Adam was recorded to have lived could have started after the fall of man when he became mortal and his days became numbered? Adam and Eve could have lived for thousands or even millions of years as immortal beings in the garden of Eden before the fall.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?