This snake has tiny vestigial legs that retain almost all the bones of tetrapod hindlimbs.
Four-legged \'snake\' fossil with clasping arms could be oldest one known
Which is the thought of one evolutionist! Not others though! Everything in the article is just a story made up based on the scientists philosophical worldview! He has nor clue if the 4 legs were vestigial and only used for grasping!
You're like the atheist who says that unless we can produce the menu for the Last Supper, Jesus never existed. No one actually believes dodges like that.
Failed attempt at trying to dodge the question. If this eyeless fish evolved into an eyeless fish- we must produce evidence to show it did! After all a hypothesis needs empirical evidence to move on to a theory. And then it must be tested and retested over and over! So we await the evidence to sho wthat this fish evolved into an eyeless fish!
All you are doing is opining circular reasoning! This fish evolved into an eyeless fish! How do you know? Because everything evolves sp it must have evolved!
As you see, evolution is creation.
In your religion maybe! Bu tnot in the faith of the one true Creator of the Universe. He is Creator not evolver!
No, God made evolution. He created living populations with the ability to change over time. Creationists say that He's not capable of making them evolve beyond new species, genera, and families, but God goes on with evolution anyway.
As you know, YE creastionism was invented by the Seventh-Day Adventists in the early 20th century.
YE creation science is based man's revisions of scripture , and is refuted by the very evidence creationists like to tout as supporting their man-made beliefs.
Well we all believe in the generic evolution in that things do change over time! But the "macro" tale of microbes to man over X millions of years is a fanciful tale meant to satisfy those who think they can escape having to stand before holy God!
As for YE Creationism. it was reasserted in the 19th century after being the most accepted by society until the enlightenment brought forth enough skeptics to challenge the sovereingty of God!
The church accepted a young earth even during the dark ages almost universally! God built into every creature an ability to adapt to a certain point and no more. New genetic information does not magically appear and certainly in the extreme rare cases of what has been dubbed "beneficial"mutations does not occur fast enough to allow for survival in ever changing climates! We are told by so many scientists that we are in a global climate crisis! Instead of rapid evolution, we are told we are witnessing rapid extinction! That is what happens in changing enviornments! Animals either leave or die! Remember over 99.9% of all mutations fall on the harmful side of Kiomeras distribution! And as the dean of Harvard genetics said around the turn of the century even the most benign of mutations ultimately reduces the viability of the hosts!
And you still have not shown one piece of empirical proof of one family changing into another!
YE creation science is based man's revisions of scripture , and is refuted by the very evidence creationists like to tout as supporting their man-made beliefs.
In case you never heard, thois is the same tactic Joseph Goebbels used under Hitler! tell a lie, make it a big one and keep repeating it in the hopes the masses will come to believe it!
No Creation is based on a straightforward literal, grammatical reading of SCripture!
Genetic, anatomical, and physiological. As you learned, they didn't lose their eyes; their eyes lost functions that were metabolically demanding.
So are you saying they still have their eyes and optic system? it is just no loinger fiunctioning?
Individuals don't evolve; populations do. The defect was not in Adam's body, but in his soul.
But populations are made of individuals. YOu can't see the trees fopr the forest!
No, it's an observed phenomenon.
No it is the concept and name we gave to what happens. But once again natural selection cannot rewrite a genetic code! It can only allow things to live or die! Natural selection cannot communicate with DNA and RNA to cause a change.
No. It favors new traits that are useful over less-useful or harmful traits.
Wrong again. Giving natural selection anthropomorphic qualities does not give it the ability to favor or disfavor. What you call "new traits" according to your own theory you worship, requires x thousands of years to develop, one small mutation at a time until something novel has come to be! So unless you are saying that enviornments changed microscopically over time to match the genetic changes ctaking place in everything- you have a problem!
You forgot what evolution does. Individuals don't evolve; populations do.
This is worth repeating! Populations are made up of individuals! and evolutionists do not have a clue if the favored trait that passed on was based on that trait already existing in the "populations" genome and because it was better suited for its enviornment -breeded large while the others either had to move on or die!
Like a dog going into the colder climes. If it does not have the genetics for long thick hair- it dies. The weather cannot communicate with the dog to grow longer hair (rewrite the genetics of that creature).
We have seen that happen by crossbreeding but that required planning and intelligence and controlled enviornment- not randomly happening willy nilly in nature!
