A question about evolution and snakes

Reptilia · #1 (**permalink**) 12-04-2006, 05:29 PM

I read that the claws snakes have on either side of their vent are the vestigial claws that stayed there from when a snake evolved from a lizard. How do they know it is from a snake evolved from a lizard, how come the snake didn't evolve into the lizard, and that the claws were the start of legs? Clearly they must know for sure or they wouldn't make a claim like it, but as I don't know, it would be good to learn.

Thanks.

trendkill · #2 (**permalink**) 12-04-2006, 05:46 PM

You know, that's a good point. I have no idea.. but I'm curious too.

CharlieJ · #3 (**permalink**) 12-04-2006, 08:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reptilia

Clearly they must know for sure or they wouldn't make a claim like it, but as I don't know, it would be good to learn.
Thanks.

Clearly, the theory of evolution is one with many unanswered questions. Many of the so-called scientific "facts" of evolution are regularly disproved once more study is done -- and new information is learned. That is normal in the world of science -- remember the world was once thought to be flat; surgical instruments weren't sterilized; the innards of the human body was a mystery, etc.

Without getting into the whole intelligent design vs. evolution debate, let's just say that in the vast absence of transitional species (and fossils), the process of one thing evolving into another is primarily guesswork (some based on good science) at best -- and pure conjecture (some based on presupposition) at worst.

TammyJamaica · #4 (**permalink**) 12-05-2006, 03:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reptilia

I read that the claws snakes have on either side of their vent are the vestigial claws that stayed there from when a snake evolved from a lizard. How do they know it is from a snake evolved from a lizard, how come the snake didn't evolve into the lizard, and that the claws were the start of legs? Clearly they must know for sure or they wouldn't make a claim like it, but as I don't know, it would be good to learn.
Thanks.

There is a lot of missing facts regarding evolution, although I do think that the basic idea is correct.
Anyway, as to the "spurs" or "claws" - if they are vestigial limbs, have they become useful only to the male snake, as his are longer and more evident?

JuliusSqueezer · #5 (**permalink**) 12-05-2006, 03:40 PM

Snakes did not evolve from lizards. Whoever said that cut a LOT of corners explaining what little is known about snake evolution. One of the earlier known snake like creature species from the late cretaceous period (145-165 million years ago)was Pachyrhachis Problematicus. A google search should find you some good artist renditions and fossil photos. These animals were believed to be closely related to what are now boids (boas and pythons) The rear limbs were never "legs". They were flippers for swimming. They didn't ever have any front limbs as far as anyone knows. It's also now believed that they may have grew these "flippers" and lost them perhaps several times through their evolution. Fossil evidence from snakes is rare. Their cartilage skeletons didn't leave behind many clues and left their past very dimmly lit compared to other animals. Even bugs and plants left us much more to go on. It's not likely that all snakes evolved from a common ancestor. Boids probably evolved from problematicus. Other types of snakes likely evolved from similar but different species.

I have never fully understood the argument between evolution and creation. It can be both you know? Perhaps God programmed in a way for them to adapt to the earth as the earth changed. I don't see where either argument discounts the other at all.

TammyJamaica · #6 (**permalink**) 12-05-2006, 06:50 PM

Good information, JS. And I can see why it was called "Problematicus"!

I agree that one argument does not discount the other, and I think that God did create all creatures (the very word "creature" means something created) but not as we know them today. Each one developed and adapted to its environment, but not changed into something else like from a lizard to a snake.

CharlieJ · #7 (**permalink**) 12-05-2006, 08:31 PM

Here's a good article regarding some of the many problems with evolution. It was written by Sociology Ph.D. and attorney Jack Wright, Jr.

Expose Students to Pros and Cons of Theory (Editorial)
Source: The News Star
It is amazing that anyone would object to teaching evolution as merely a theory, and not an established fact. There are numerous objections to the theory of evolution, and every student should be made aware of them. After all, any educational system should be guided by the truism, "Whoever knew the truth put to worse, in a free and open encounter?" (John Milton).
The theory of evolution has a testable link: the transitional form. If Darwin were right, scattered throughout the geological record would be millions of intermediate forms between fish, reptiles, birds, animals and man.
In 1872, an oceanic expedition set forth on the H.M.S. Challenger to retrieve transitional forms from the oceans. But alas and a lack, neither the Challenger nor any other expedition before or since has been able to dredge up any meaningful kind of intermediate form. The problem has been called the 'missing link.' What is missing? The evidence.
Dr. Elridge, a world-famous paleontologist of the British Museum, has remarked, "Nine-tenths of the talk of evolutionists is sheer nonsense, not founded on observation, and wholly unsupported by the facts. This museum is full of the proof of the utter falsity of their views. In all this great museum, there is not a particle of evidence of the transmutation of species." Notwithstanding shortcomings of the Darwinist theory, it has been accepted in biology textbooks as a fact. Anyone questioning this world view is subject to being treated as a member of the flat-earth society.
Darwin was honest enough to point out what would be necessary to refute his theory: he wrote, "If it would be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modification, my theory would absolutely break down." The Harvard atheist, now deceased, Stephen J. Gould, points out Darwin's theory fails at this point: "Of what possible use are the imperfect, incipient stages of useful structures?" What good is half a jaw? Or half a wing? Evolutionists have tried to salvage Darwin's thought by adding mutations.
In response, Dr. Walter Brown, in his book, In the Beginning, writes, "What mutations could transform a crawling larva into a flying monarch butterfly that can accurately navigate three thousand miles, using a brain the size of a pinhead?" Obviously, the vast information that directs every stage of a larva and an adult's development, including metamorphosis, must reside in its genetic material at the beginning. This only fits creation. Thus both within and without the evolutionary camp, there are devastating criticisms of Darwin's theory. Students should be exposed to the pros and cons of this debate, so they can make up their own minds about what is, ultimately, the truth.

Advertisement