Ponder This

[Jpark]

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.

http://www.google.com/search?q=anci...s=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

 

[juvenissun]

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 seems Gen 3:14 gives a much better reason for the change.

 

[gluadys]

OK. Interesting.

I never know why would ancient snake lose its leg in the process of evolution. What environmental pressure would cause that?

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.

 

[Mallon]

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.

It seems Gen 3:14 gives a much better reason for the change.

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.

 

[juvenissun]

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.

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. 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.

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.

 

[Mallon]

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

With respect, your understanding of the subject appears... weak, at best.

 

[juvenissun]

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.

You said it very well. That makes it very difficult for me to accept the idea of evolution, no matter how convincing the "evidences" are.

It is very similar to the old idea of continental drifting. It turns out that the idea is only apparently right, because we did not know HOW does it happen.

 

[juvenissun]

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.

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.

 

[Assyrian]

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.

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.

 

[theFijian]

Um, I read Genesis. It's quite clearly English.

lol! It's a wonder the israelites knew what God was on about then!

 

[Mallon]

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.

Bingo.

 

[juvenissun]

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 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.

 

[BrendanMark]

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.

Adaptability to conditions/environment or to competition from other species using the DNA and its survival (breeding) that God gave them in order to make the necessary adaptation?

Evolution has no "reason", it's just natural responses to prevailing conditions (God given?) that change over time. So species need to as well, or morph into new species that can survive given the initial impetus and mysterious creative generosity of the Prime Mover.

 

[Mallon]

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.

 

[BrendanMark]

In Australia, as we speak, there is a massive flood. Most of the four-legged lizards are drowning (the trees are not tall enough this time) but the snakes are swimming away.

Some four-leggers are even hitching a ride on the snakes. (Frog hitches ride with snake to flee floods).

That's one brave frog.

 

[juvenissun]

For someone who claims to be a teacher, you certainly don't show much interest in learning.

This is your usual way to avoid further hard questions: thrown out some junk statement.

You did it.

 

[theFijian]

This is your usual way to avoid further hard questions: thrown out some junk statement.

You did it.

Irrelevant questions <> hard questions

 

[Happy Hearts Club]

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.

"And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: "

The tree of life was something Adam and Eve had access to before the Fall, when they walked through the garden. This is a Biblical truth representative of a partaking of eternal life, meaning life without death. Scripture would simply tell us that before the Fall, man could have very well lived for an extremely long time, which would also account for the world becoming populated and hence the events following in genesis makes perfect sense.