Reptile & Amphibian Forums

Check this out...

news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040409/ap_on_sc/snake_debate_3
-----
Michael

I was actually going to mention this myself, lol. Good article.
-----
0.1.0 argentine horn
0.0.2 pixie
1.1.0 fire salamanders
0.0.1 axolotl
1.1.0 golden treefrogs
0.0.1 green treefrog
0.1.0 golden gecko
0.1.0 skunk gecko
0.0.1 cali king
0.1.0 sumatran blood python
0.1.0 ball python
0.0.1 argentine B&W tegu
0.0.2 giant black millipdes
0.0.2 dumpys

I think God created snakes exactly as they are now. Show me a fossil of a snake evolving from having legs to not having legs.

I'm just going to HUMOR your argument here. Do you remember in Genesis when God punished the "serpent" by forcing him to go about on his belly. Well if he wasn't on his belly before he must have had legs. BTW, to heck with fossils, ever seen a skink or glass lizard? Alos, ever checked out the area around the vent of some boas and pythons. You should see the remannts of legs. In fact their skeleton still has limb girdles. I guess God just isn't finished with those yet, eh? I love all these people spouting off their religious ideals when they are not even familiar with their own religion. I didn't mean to make you look stupid, it just kind of happened.

FTR, I have no problem with any religion, just people who close their eyes and use their religion as a blind man uses his cane.
-----
Martin Whalin
My Email

Quotes from guys named Carl:

"Science stops at the frontier of logic. Nature does not, she thrives on ground as yet untrodden by theory."
-Carl Jung

"It is foolish to let singleness of purpose deprive one of the joy and delectation of the many wonderful sights and sounds incidental to the quest."
-Carl Kauffeld

In retrospect, I believe I've been trolled, and boy did I bite.
-----
Martin Whalin
My Email

Quotes from guys named Carl:

"Science stops at the frontier of logic. Nature does not, she thrives on ground as yet untrodden by theory."
-Carl Jung

"It is foolish to let singleness of purpose deprive one of the joy and delectation of the many wonderful sights and sounds incidental to the quest."
-Carl Kauffeld

I believe you were the one spouting Martin. I just stated my beliefs. In the same way I allow you the courtesy of having your beliefs I think you should allow me the courtesy of having mine. You are being narrow minded.

I find it interesting that you choose to disregard fossil evidence. Seems that you are selective in the information you regard as relevant.

It's called an evolutionary theory because it is a theory that keeps changing as more informationappears.

If you kept up with your reading about the evolutionary theory you would find that there is great disagreement within the scientific community as to its relevance. It seems the more they learn the less they understand.

Please deal with your own issues before you start trying to address mine.

>>I believe you were the one spouting Martin."

You may be right about that one. I have atendency to be a little teapot.

"I just stated my beliefs."

Me too.

" In the same way I allow you the courtesy of having your beliefs I think you should allow me the courtesy of having mine."

I can't see how I have denied you the courtesy of anything.

>>I find it interesting that you choose to disregard fossil evidence. Seems that you are selective in the information you regard as relevant."

I'm not disregarding it. I'm just pointing out that it's not needed to present my side of the argument. If you want pictures, do your own google.

"It's called an evolutionary theory because it is a theory that keeps changing as more informationappears.
>>
>>If you kept up with your reading about the evolutionary theory you would find that there is great disagreement within the scientific community as to its relevance. It seems the more they learn the less they understand."

As a matter of fact, I disagree with the modern theory of evolution. Just check out my Jung quote below. FTR, the disagreement pertains to how it happens, not if it happens. You can demonstrate that it happens in a few minutes under the right conditions in a lab with bacteria.

>>Please deal with your own issues before you start trying to address mine."

If you don't want your "issues" addressed then why did you post them here on a "forum".

Now, let's get to the point. You failed to address any of the arguments I presented and instead addressed my method of presenting it. Irrelevant. Tell me why you disregard or disagree with the points I made. I'm interested.

-----
Martin Whalin
My Email

Quotes from guys named Carl:

"Science stops at the frontier of logic. Nature does not, she thrives on ground as yet untrodden by theory."
-Carl Jung

"It is foolish to let singleness of purpose deprive one of the joy and delectation of the many wonderful sights and sounds incidental to the quest."
-Carl Kauffeld

This is for those who believe snakes (and every other animal) evolved. In the context of this thread...evolved from some pre-historic lizards into the snakes we know today. This is not meant to inflame, nor to push any agenda...but is asked out of genuine curiosity and lack of understanding...

HOW did snakes evolve from legged creatures into the amazingly complext legless creatures we know today? If I understand how evolution works...some mutation occurs in an animal that actually makes it more fit for its environment...therefore, it survives better than others and lives to find a mate who happened to have the same genetic mutation so they could pass it on to their offspring. Yes?

But when you go from lizards to snakes...exactly how did this happen? Did the legs gradually disappear? If so...how did the creatures with half-legs survive well enough to find a mate to pass its genes on to? Did all four limbs gradually go away at the same rate? Or one at a time? Was there a creature born suddenly with NO limbs at all? If so...how did it also happen to have the right skeletal and muscular system to actually move its limbless body in such a way that it could avoid predators and find its own prey?

Did the amazing jaw/skull structure that we see today evolve at the same time as the lack of limbs? Or did that come after it learned how to crawl along the ground? Did they survive on tiny food the size of their heads before their jaws evolved? If they were doing fine that way, then why did they suddenly have these detachable jaws that could swallow relatively huge prey?

I really am trying to understand what concept of this evolutionary process makes sense. How does a lizard suddenly become a snake? And if it didn't happen suddenly, then how and why did the countless necessary "in-between" creatures survive and manage to pass on their genes? How did this same process happen the exact same way all over the world to give us the vastly different species of snakes we see now? And why do we still have lizards if the snakes were better suited for evolution?

I will very openly and with a great deal of interest, read any replies to these questions. (Please understand there is NO sarcasm intended here...I really mean it.)

Thank you.
-----
--Judy

1.0 red cape gopher (Caesar)
1.0 bearded dragon (Shaggy)

ball-pythons.net
(It's NOT just ball pythons!)

Lizards have lost their legs on numerous occasions, and countless intermediates exist. The snakes didn't evolve out of the lizard lineage but rather out of the Varanid (monitor lizard) lineage. Goannas (or monitor lizards) have forked tongues like snakes and share significant skull similarities.

A single lineage gave rise to all the snakes today. It didn't happen simutaneously in multiple locations but rather up to 100 million years ago, when many of todays continents where connected (North America was invaded via the land bridge connecting Asia and Alaska). Evolution can be seen at work in the snake lineages in various ways, ranging from vestigial limbs through venom evolution in the advanced snakes (Colubroidea).

The loss of limbs allowed the snakes to colonise new niches, not compete with lizards for existing niches. Further, the ability to disarticulate the jaw is another adaptation that allowed different prey to be targeted. Even adaptation conveys an advantage either through being more competative for an existing niche or being able to exploit a different niche.

Cheers
Bryan
-----
Dr. Bryan Grieg Fry
Deputy Director
Australian Venom Research Unit
University of Melbourne

www.venomdoc.com

" The snakes didn't evolve out of the lizard lineage but rather out of the Varanid (monitor lizard) lineage. Goannas (or monitor lizards) have forked tongues like snakes and share significant skull similarities."

Hey Brian!
There seems to be new evidence against this theory. Such as the article that started this thread. What was your opinion of that? Thanks for posting. This thread needed at least one person that knows what they're talking about.
-----
Martin Whalin
My Email

Quotes from guys named Carl:

"Science stops at the frontier of logic. Nature does not, she thrives on ground as yet untrodden by theory."
-Carl Jung

"It is foolish to let singleness of purpose deprive one of the joy and delectation of the many wonderful sights and sounds incidental to the quest."
-Carl Kauffeld

Hi mate,

Ah crap, you're right. In any case, the nearest lizard neighbor is not a skink type but a common ancestor of the Agamid/Chameleon/Iguanid clade. In any case, the key here is the terrestrial origin rather than the marine origin. Thats the key to this particular paper (whic ironically I had on my harddrive, just hadn't glanced at for a while).

Also significant is that strongly constricting behaviour (eg boas and python lineages) evolved two times independently, with the boa and python lineages (respectively) being utterly unrelated to each other. This is in contast to the single origin of snake venom at the base of the Colubroidea tree (resulting in all the 'colubrids' being inherently venomous).

All of this is what makes the snakes such a fascinating area to study evolution in

Cheers
B
-----
Dr. Bryan Grieg Fry
Deputy Director
Australian Venom Research Unit
University of Melbourne

www.venomdoc.com

"In any case, the nearest lizard neighbor is not a skink type but a common ancestor of the Agamid/Chameleon/Iguanid clade"

Yeah, I understand that. I was just trying to point out that legs can "shrink".
-----
Martin Whalin
My Email

Quotes from guys named Carl:

"Science stops at the frontier of logic. Nature does not, she thrives on ground as yet untrodden by theory."
-Carl Jung

"It is foolish to let singleness of purpose deprive one of the joy and delectation of the many wonderful sights and sounds incidental to the quest."
-Carl Kauffeld

Gee Martin....and just when I thought I had added something meaningful......(lol)

Frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

Sorry, no offense meant. I...well you know what I meant. Bryan could be considered an expert. lol
-----
Martin Whalin
My Email

Quotes from guys named Carl:

"Science stops at the frontier of logic. Nature does not, she thrives on ground as yet untrodden by theory."
-Carl Jung

"It is foolish to let singleness of purpose deprive one of the joy and delectation of the many wonderful sights and sounds incidental to the quest."
-Carl Kauffeld

none taken....just couldn't resist the comment. (lol) Frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

Lizards have lost their legs on numerous occasions, and countless intermediates exist.

Define "lost their legs"...do you mean in accidents and managed to survive anyhow? I don't think you do because that sort of trait could not be passed down. I'm guessing you mean there are different evolutional examples of lizards losing their legs? Such as snakes and legless lizards? Fair enough, although it doesn't answer any of my questions.

"Countless imtermediates exist..." I'm not going to ask you to "show me" these, which is a common debate tactic on these forums that seem to get no one anywhere. I'm sure if these exist, I can find the examples myself with a few clicks of google. But what I don't understand, and what no one has ever answered for me, is HOW an animal can be born with missing (shrinking???) limbs and survive in the first place...much less thrive and find a mate with the same random mutation and multiply.

The snakes didn't evolve out of the lizard lineage but rather out of the Varanid (monitor lizard) lineage. Goannas (or monitor lizards) have forked tongues like snakes and share significant skull similarities.

Ok...forgive my poor syntax. I've studied various genera of snakes far more than I have of lizards and monitors. But the same questions remain regardless of which lines you are talking about.

A single lineage gave rise to all the snakes today. It didn't happen simutaneously in multiple locations but rather up to 100 million years ago, when many of todays continents where connected (North America was invaded via the land bridge connecting Asia and Alaska).

Ok...I'll buy the "connected continents" theory to answer the question about how so many different genera ended up around the world even though they all came from the same lizard. Or monitor. But this is a minor point compared to the rest of my qestions.

Evolution can be seen at work in the snake lineages in various ways, ranging from vestigial limbs through venom evolution in the advanced snakes (Colubroidea).

Why do we think that venom in some colubrids is evidence of evolution? How can we be sure that snakes haven't always had the bone structure that hints at pelvis and legs? Do they also have vestiges of a breastbone and forelegs? Could it not be that the spurs we see actually serve some purpose, even if we don't understand it? And of course, if you're right and they ARE remains of an ancient pelvis and legs...you still haven't explained how such a thing could come to be.

The loss of limbs allowed the snakes to colonise new niches, not compete with lizards for existing niches.

Why would we then have so many different snakes in the same area that essentially fill the same niches?

Further, the ability to disarticulate the jaw is another adaptation that allowed different prey to be targeted. Even adaptation conveys an advantage either through being more competative for an existing niche or being able to exploit a different niche.

Yes...this explains WHY such a jaw might evolve...but it doesn't explain how. How does an animal born with a deformed jaw survive long enough to reproduce? And how does it happen that there is another one just like him to mate with?

I guess my problem with evolution is that the proponents of it speak loudly of how logical it is. That it is the only explaination of our existence that is remotely plausible. And yet, if you really look deeply into it, past the surface rhetoric, it just doesn't make sense. The awesome complexity of even the simplest living organisms, and the constant tendency of nature toward chaos, makes it inconcievable to me that one animal would turn into another animal. Not just once, but over and over and over again, far too many times than we can even comprehend...to bring about life as we know it today.

Thank you for listening and taking the time with me for a civilized discussion of a very touchy topic. I appreciate it, and I appreciate your viewpoints.
-----
--Judy

1.0 red cape gopher (Caesar)
1.0 bearded dragon (Shaggy)

ball-pythons.net
(It's NOT just ball pythons!)

First, with all due respect... I would suggest a return to your studies. There are plenty of examples of lizards that are "in between" from glass lizards to slow worms....

For example the lizards of the genura Ophioscincus (which have reduced or absent limbs) Lialis (which have hind flaps)and Lerista to name a few...and there are plenty more. Do I really have to get writer's cramp from listing them?

And your reasoning on the pelvic girtle is flawed. Why would vesigal bones be present in a snake that does not need them? Makes no sense. To ignore the implications is just wishful thinking...not good science.

The fossil evidence was presented here, if you have the knowledge to understand what the bones shown in the photo are.

You make the mistake of thinking evolution is a static process. It is not...it is continuous. Snakes may have started as a creature adapted to a fossorial lifestyle, but have evolved as all animals do to find new niches. Which is why there are so many unique species today that you should have been able to find on the fossil record if they were Created as they are now.

The limbs did not fall off suddenly, so there were no handicapped animals running around. Just like we are learning in the evolution of birds (and they have found the fossils on that one)it was a gradual process. All snake fosils are rare..I am a collector so I do speak from knowledge. That is what has made the question harder to answer. But the answers are there. If you are willing to look at the evidence impartially rather than from a religious bias.

I will have to tackle this more in the morning as it is late.

Frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

First, with all due respect... I would suggest a return to your studies.

With all due respect, I fully intend to. At the moment, I've got my hands full being a full-time Mom to three very demanding children. But as soon as they're all in school and slightly more adept at watching after themselves from time to time, I fully intend to "return to my studies." In the meantime, I do what I can with the Internet and library.

There are plenty of examples of lizards that are "in between" from glass lizards to slow worms...For example the lizards of the genura Ophioscincus (which have reduced or absent limbs) Lialis (which have hind flaps)and Lerista to name a few...and there are plenty more. Do I really have to get writer's cramp from listing them?

No, writer's cramp (and the condescending attitude) are not at all necessary. YOU label these animals as "in between" but what makes them so? Just because they are similar to both lizards and snakes? My question to you is...HOW did they get to be there in the first place? Everyone (and I'm speaking in general here, not about specific people on this forum) keeps pointing at things and saying "THAT" is a piece of evidence....or "THIS" is WHY it evolved the way it did. But not one single person has answered the question "HOW."

And your reasoning on the pelvic girtle is flawed. Why would vesigal bones be present in a snake that does not need them? Makes no sense. To ignore the implications is just wishful thinking...not good science.

Lots of things in our world don't make sense, even to the most learned among us. And my reasoning is not flawed, because I suggested there could be uses that we don't understand. Has anyone surgically removed these "vestiges" and seen if the snake still functioned as normally as it did with them? And it's not wishful thinking at all...because there are no "wishes" involved. I have no wish to prove or disprove anything here....I'm merely trying to understand HOW all this works.

The fossil evidence was presented here, if you have the knowledge to understand what the bones shown in the photo are.

I will fully own to the fact that I have no training to decifer bone structures in fossils. But placing a single picture of something that requires a proper college education to understand still doesn't explain how it came to be. Yes, it appears that the animal whose bones those once were had some vague remnant of a leg (if this is what the picture is supposed to be suggesting...I'm just trying to agree with the assertion, not interpret it myself)...but how does this tell us what the purpose of such a bone structure was? It doesn't. We don't know.

If anything, the picture illustrates my questions. HOW did the legs disappear?

You make the mistake of thinking evolution is a static process. It is not...it is continuous.

No, I haven't made that mistake. But perhaps I'm not making myself very clear. It can't possibly be a static process where a lizard suddenly gives birth to a snake one day. That would just be "magic" wouldn't it?

Ok...so if it's not static...then it must be a continuous, ongoing process. But how??? That is my central question. Not why. The "why" is the easy part, and the part that everyone seems to focus on. Because with "why" we can make all the assumptions we wish and rarely be proven wrong. It's harder to assume the "how" part because it demands a higher level of proof. Now...before you start pointing at "proofs" again, that's not what I'm looking for. I've no doubt that you can dig up any number of pictures or species and claim they prove your point...but they still won't tell me "how."

Which is why there are so many unique species today that you should have been able to find on the fossil record if they were Created as they are now.

That's a good point. And I have some ideas about that, too...but that is a whole different discussion and I don't want to muddy the water here any more than it already is. I have many of the same questions about Creation as I do evolution.

The limbs did not fall off suddenly, so there were no handicapped animals running around.

So...instead of falling off suddenly...they just VERY VERY gradually got shorter and shorter and shorter? Why? Oh wait...because that somehow made it more suited to its environment? Ok...but HOW? Eventually you would have a stubby-limbed creature trying to scoot around on its belly because it was born with legs too short to use for locomotion. Would it have suddenly, at the same time, developed the muscle and scale structure to allow it to grip the ground with its belly and pull itself along? But that would be too sudden of a change. How did such an incredibly complicated change come about so gradually and yet allow all the birth-defected animals in the chain to thrive and reproduce?

Just like we are learning in the evolution of birds (and they have found the fossils on that one)it was a gradual process.

These questions apply to birds, too...and any evolutionary change you care to offer as an example. Just happens that snakes and monitors are on the table at the moment.

All snake fosils are rare..I am a collector so I do speak from knowledge.

Could the rarity of the fossils be due to some fragile nature of the animal's bones? If so...couldn't it be possible that examples of these animals existed in the distant past but didn't leave a fossil record simply because their bone make-up couldn't be preserved under the circumstances in which they died?

That is what has made the question harder to answer.

I honestly don't expect anyone to answer my central question of "HOW"...but I do keep hoping. I'm not sure an answer exists, and if it does, it would fill text books...and be difficult to condense down to a simple forum post.

But the answers are there. If you are willing to look at the evidence impartially rather than from a religious bias.

You're making a huge assumption here. You're assuming that just because I dont blindly buy into the theory of evolution that I do so because of religious bias. I haven't mentioned religion once, nor offered any argument of a religious nature. I'll be frank about the fact that I am a Christian, but my questions about evolution began LONG before I accepted Christ into my life. One honestly has little to do with the other.

As I said...I seriously doubt that anyone will be able to answer my questions as I've stated them. And as interested as I am in those answers...what I would really like to see is even a single person who "believes" in evolution to seriously consider what I'm asking. I'm accused of being close-minded and biased because of religion...but I dare say most of you are exactly the same way. You refuse to question the obvious and glaring discrepencies in the theory of evolution because you're afraid the only other answer would have to be "religious," and that is just too unacceptable. (Though I've no doubt that everyone would instantly and vehemently deny such a thing without giving it a moment's thought.......but wait...wouldn't that be a close-minded attitude?)
-----
--Judy

1.0 red cape gopher (Caesar)
1.0 bearded dragon (Shaggy)

ball-pythons.net
(It's NOT just ball pythons!)

Judy,
You are so right it's ridiculous. Nobody knows exactly how. We can assume that a lizard species that was burrowing through and under logs and dirt would be better suited with smaller legs. Therefore ones born with smaller legs would survive and reproduce more than their relatives. This would create more babies with smaller legs and if some of them came out with even smaller legs they would be even more successful. The ones with the birth DEFECTS do not survive. Also, as the legs ofthe species get slowly smaller over millions of years. The ones that also mutate to have the muscle structure that allows them to move about on their belly would be even more suited for survival and hence, would procreate. So now we have a lizard that has very small legs and is still able to move about fine, actually better than when his ancestors had larger legs. Now the legs are so small that they aren't good for anything besides getting in the way. Therefore, the ones born with less of an external limb would have the advantage. This leads to a lizard with no legs such as a glass lizard. The ones that mutate to have smaller legs but because of this are unsuited for survival, will die off fast. But, just because a lizard has no legs doesn't make it a snake.
The idea of different species of snake competing for the same niches, this is easily explained. Animals can evolve anywhere. But, sometimes their range changes. When the glaciers receded at the end of the last ice-age, it left a track of basically desert/prairie that ran from the SW of this continent to about where New York state is today. This allowed all kinds of desert species to move into this area. (basically every reptile in the area) However, as we know now, it didn't remain desert-like. The desert/prairie dwellers didn't leave though, they evolved to survive the new climate. When we see two species of snakes inhabiting the same niche, what we are seeing is what causes evolution. One of the species is eventually going to evolve to be better suited and either absorb or push out the other species. (more likely they will be exterminated by humans) There is no Scientific method to prove anything. Nothing has ever been proven. The purpose of scientific theory is to attempt to disprove it. If it can't be disproven, than it is generally accepted as a VALID THEORY but not as fact.

>>First, with all due respect... I would suggest a return to your studies.
>>
>>With all due respect, I fully intend to. At the moment, I've got my hands full being a full-time Mom to three very demanding children. But as soon as they're all in school and slightly more adept at watching after themselves from time to time, I fully intend to "return to my studies." In the meantime, I do what I can with the Internet and library.
>>
>>There are plenty of examples of lizards that are "in between" from glass lizards to slow worms...For example the lizards of the genura Ophioscincus (which have reduced or absent limbs) Lialis (which have hind flaps)and Lerista to name a few...and there are plenty more. Do I really have to get writer's cramp from listing them?
>>
>>No, writer's cramp (and the condescending attitude) are not at all necessary. YOU label these animals as "in between" but what makes them so? Just because they are similar to both lizards and snakes? My question to you is...HOW did they get to be there in the first place? Everyone (and I'm speaking in general here, not about specific people on this forum) keeps pointing at things and saying "THAT" is a piece of evidence....or "THIS" is WHY it evolved the way it did. But not one single person has answered the question "HOW."
>>
>>And your reasoning on the pelvic girtle is flawed. Why would vesigal bones be present in a snake that does not need them? Makes no sense. To ignore the implications is just wishful thinking...not good science.
>>
>>Lots of things in our world don't make sense, even to the most learned among us. And my reasoning is not flawed, because I suggested there could be uses that we don't understand. Has anyone surgically removed these "vestiges" and seen if the snake still functioned as normally as it did with them? And it's not wishful thinking at all...because there are no "wishes" involved. I have no wish to prove or disprove anything here....I'm merely trying to understand HOW all this works.
>>
>>The fossil evidence was presented here, if you have the knowledge to understand what the bones shown in the photo are.
>>
>>I will fully own to the fact that I have no training to decifer bone structures in fossils. But placing a single picture of something that requires a proper college education to understand still doesn't explain how it came to be. Yes, it appears that the animal whose bones those once were had some vague remnant of a leg (if this is what the picture is supposed to be suggesting...I'm just trying to agree with the assertion, not interpret it myself)...but how does this tell us what the purpose of such a bone structure was? It doesn't. We don't know.
>>
>>If anything, the picture illustrates my questions. HOW did the legs disappear?
>>
>>You make the mistake of thinking evolution is a static process. It is not...it is continuous.
>>
>>No, I haven't made that mistake. But perhaps I'm not making myself very clear. It can't possibly be a static process where a lizard suddenly gives birth to a snake one day. That would just be "magic" wouldn't it?
>>
>>Ok...so if it's not static...then it must be a continuous, ongoing process. But how??? That is my central question. Not why. The "why" is the easy part, and the part that everyone seems to focus on. Because with "why" we can make all the assumptions we wish and rarely be proven wrong. It's harder to assume the "how" part because it demands a higher level of proof. Now...before you start pointing at "proofs" again, that's not what I'm looking for. I've no doubt that you can dig up any number of pictures or species and claim they prove your point...but they still won't tell me "how."
>>
>>Which is why there are so many unique species today that you should have been able to find on the fossil record if they were Created as they are now.
>>
>>That's a good point. And I have some ideas about that, too...but that is a whole different discussion and I don't want to muddy the water here any more than it already is. I have many of the same questions about Creation as I do evolution.
>>
>>The limbs did not fall off suddenly, so there were no handicapped animals running around.
>>
>>So...instead of falling off suddenly...they just VERY VERY gradually got shorter and shorter and shorter? Why? Oh wait...because that somehow made it more suited to its environment? Ok...but HOW? Eventually you would have a stubby-limbed creature trying to scoot around on its belly because it was born with legs too short to use for locomotion. Would it have suddenly, at the same time, developed the muscle and scale structure to allow it to grip the ground with its belly and pull itself along? But that would be too sudden of a change. How did such an incredibly complicated change come about so gradually and yet allow all the birth-defected animals in the chain to thrive and reproduce?
>>
>>Just like we are learning in the evolution of birds (and they have found the fossils on that one)it was a gradual process.
>>
>>These questions apply to birds, too...and any evolutionary change you care to offer as an example. Just happens that snakes and monitors are on the table at the moment.
>>
>>All snake fosils are rare..I am a collector so I do speak from knowledge.
>>
>>Could the rarity of the fossils be due to some fragile nature of the animal's bones? If so...couldn't it be possible that examples of these animals existed in the distant past but didn't leave a fossil record simply because their bone make-up couldn't be preserved under the circumstances in which they died?
>>
>> That is what has made the question harder to answer.
>>
>>I honestly don't expect anyone to answer my central question of "HOW"...but I do keep hoping. I'm not sure an answer exists, and if it does, it would fill text books...and be difficult to condense down to a simple forum post.
>>
>>But the answers are there. If you are willing to look at the evidence impartially rather than from a religious bias.
>>
>>You're making a huge assumption here. You're assuming that just because I dont blindly buy into the theory of evolution that I do so because of religious bias. I haven't mentioned religion once, nor offered any argument of a religious nature. I'll be frank about the fact that I am a Christian, but my questions about evolution began LONG before I accepted Christ into my life. One honestly has little to do with the other.
>>
>>As I said...I seriously doubt that anyone will be able to answer my questions as I've stated them. And as interested as I am in those answers...what I would really like to see is even a single person who "believes" in evolution to seriously consider what I'm asking. I'm accused of being close-minded and biased because of religion...but I dare say most of you are exactly the same way. You refuse to question the obvious and glaring discrepencies in the theory of evolution because you're afraid the only other answer would have to be "religious," and that is just too unacceptable. (Though I've no doubt that everyone would instantly and vehemently deny such a thing without giving it a moment's thought.......but wait...wouldn't that be a close-minded attitude?)
>>-----
>>--Judy
>>
>>1.0 red cape gopher (Caesar)
>>1.0 bearded dragon (Shaggy)
>>
>>ball-pythons.net
>>It's NOT just ball pythons!)
-----
Martin Whalin
My Email

Quotes from guys named Carl:

"Science stops at the frontier of logic. Nature does not, she thrives on ground as yet untrodden by theory."
-Carl Jung

"It is foolish to let singleness of purpose deprive one of the joy and delectation of the many wonderful sights and sounds incidental to the quest."
-Carl Kauffeld

Hi JLC,

Evolution can occur in steady state slight changes over time or it can be punctuated or sometimes a single mutation can confer a dramatic advantage.

In each clutch, the offspring are not identical to each other. There is an inherent slight variation between them. This slight variation could make a particular animal more efficient at catching prey. Even just a small competative advantage goes a long way. A few more grasshoppers here and there could make the difference between life and death. The key is of course that the dead don't breed. Thus, an animal that is a bit more adept at rummaging through the leaf litter because its lets are just a bit smaller than its litter mates may breed first and more often. Take this scenario through many successive generations and you have a selection pressure for the animals that are genetically more prone to small legs flourishing.

In punctuated evolution, this is where there is a rapid radiation and diversification over a short period of time. A good example of this is when the sea kraits colonised the largely snake empty Australia/New Guinea. The elapids took off and evolved into a dizzying array of unique forms and specialisations in a relatively short period of time.

A good example of a single mutation conferring a tremendous advantage is sickle cell anemia. This mutation when present as part of a heterozygous combination with the normal state makes the person much more resistant to malaria. Thus, this mutation became common in Africa (despite causing significant health problems as well as being lethal in the homozygous state). This mutation is quite common in Haiti due to the large percentage of slaves from that region in Africa ending up there. Sickle cell is selected against there and in the US since there is no malaria to provide a selection pressure for it.

In the case of the 'colubrid' snakes having venom being a good examle of evolution, have a look at these papers and get back to me on that.

Fry BG, Wüster W, Ramjan SFR, Jackson T, Martelli P and Kini RM. (2003) "LC/MS (liquid chromatography, mass spectrometry) analysis of Colubroidea snake venoms: evolutionary and toxinological implications." Rapid Communications in Mass Spectrometry 17: 2047-2062.
http://www.venomdoc.com/downloads/2003_BGF_Colubroidea_RCMS.pdf

Fry BG, Lumsden N, Wüster W, Wickramaratna J, Hodgson WC and. Kini RM. (2003) "Isolation of a neurotoxin (alpha-colubritoxin) from a 'non-venomous' colubrid: evidence for early origin of venom in snakes. Journal of Molecular Evolution 57(4):446-452
http://www.venomdoc.com/downloads/2003_BGF_alpha-colubritoxin.pdf

Also, we have a paper coming out shortly in Molecular Biology & Evolution which I have attached the abstract of below.

Fry, B.G and Wüster, W. (2004) "Assembling an arsenal: Origin and evolution of the snake venom proteome inferred from phylogenetic analysis of toxin sequences." Molecular Biology and Evolution (In press)
"We analyzed the origin and evolution of snake venom toxin families represented in both viperid and elapid snakes by means of phylogenetic analysis of the amino acid sequences of the toxins and related non-venom proteins. Out of eight toxin families analyzed, five provided clear evidence of recruitment into the snake venom proteome prior to the diversification of the advanced snakes (Kunitz-type protease inhibitors, CRISP toxins, galactose binding lectins, M12B peptidases, nerve growth factor toxins), and one was equivocal (cystatin toxins). In two others (phospholipase A2 and natriuretic toxins), the non-monophyly of venom toxins demonstrates that presence of these proteins in elapids and viperids results from independent recruitment events. The ANP/BNP natriuretic toxins are likely to be basal while the CNP/BPP toxins are Viperidae only. Similarly, the lectins were recruited twice. In contrast to the basal recruitment of the galactose binding lectins, the C-type lectins were shown to be Viperidae only, with the alpha- and beta-chains resulting from an early duplication event. These results provide strong additional evidence that venom evolved once, at the base of the advanced snake radiation, rather than evolving multiple times in different lineages, with these toxins also present in the venoms of the ‘colubrid’ snake families. Moreover, they provide a first insight into the composition of the earliest ophidian venoms, and point the way towards a research program that could elucidate the functional context of the evolution of the snake venom proteome."

Cheers
Bryan
-----
Dr. Bryan Grieg Fry
Deputy Director
Australian Venom Research Unit
University of Melbourne

www.venomdoc.com

Thanks to you, and everyone who responded. I know these long and detailed answers take time to compose and I appreciate it. I've copied all the references you've offered and will study them at length.

As one other person on this thread mentioned...I can buy into a given species adapting to their surroundings by gradually changing colors/patterns, becoming smaller or larger, or other similar changes. But I still can't accept that one animal somehow turned into another, no matter how gradually. I can't comprehend how entire, complex organs came to be when they weren't there before.

There are people in this world who gladly accept whatever is taught to them...whatever the "mainstream" thought seems to be, whether this be in the realm of theoretical science, politics, religion, or what-have-you.

And there are people who take pride in thinking for themselves, and questioning the status-quo. They don't accept something as fact just because it's the most easily accepted. These are the people I'm trying to speak to. Even if you don't/won't/can't accept that God exists and the creation story as told in the Bible...how can you blindly accept the theory of evolution? That life suddenly appeared where there was none? That simple, single-celled organisms somehow became humans, who experience not only physical life, but spiritual (or soulful, or whatever you want to call it) as well? How did a single-celled organism evolve a heart? Or lungs? Or eyes? Or emotions??? Why did plants AND animals evolve into the same world? If the world started off as plant-life...how did the first animal come to be? Or vice-versa? In a world where chaos reigns and everything tends towards entropy, how did the wonderous and virtually statistically impossible process of evolution take place at all? And not just once...but over and over and over again through what had to have been more stages than we can ever comprehend?

These are all questions that have no answers. And yet they are accepted as not only possible, but highly probable by people who are afraid to question too deeply where else we might have come from.

No matter what you choose to believe or think, and no matter how seriously you decide to take any of my thoughts, I do very much appreciate the fact that no one attacked or demeaned or derailed the discussion with nastiness. Thank you.
-
-----
--Judy

1.0 red cape gopher (Caesar)
1.0 bearded dragon (Shaggy)

ball-pythons.net
(It's NOT just ball pythons!)

The flip side to your statement that people blindly believe whatever is taught to them (which isn't the case unless the person is cattle in which case they probably still believe in weapons of mass distraction) is that it is a total cop out to feel that its too complex to comprehend and therefore come to the conclusion that it can't have occured.

I find it very suprising in this day and age that people still believe in creation. That is the true case of blindly believing whatever is taught to them (where is the evidence for creation?)

Ciao
Bryan
-----
Dr. Bryan Grieg Fry
Deputy Director
Australian Venom Research Unit
University of Melbourne

www.venomdoc.com

"weapons of mass distraction"

That's hilarious, never heard that one before. Ha!
-----
Martin Whalin
My Email

Quotes from guys named Carl:

"Science stops at the frontier of logic. Nature does not, she thrives on ground as yet untrodden by theory."
-Carl Jung

"It is foolish to let singleness of purpose deprive one of the joy and delectation of the many wonderful sights and sounds incidental to the quest."
-Carl Kauffeld

(lol). Judy, Glad you came out of this feeling ok, but I have to comment on your statement about those of us who take pride in thinking for themselves.

The Right to Think (that which you would call free will) has been hotly contested by organised religion since it's inception. For example...In the middle ages the doctrine was..."Reading and interpretation of the Bible is the sole provence of the church." You could be burned at the stake for reading a Bible. Then came the Inquisition. All part of our history.

The Bible did not fall into "common" hands till the invention of the printing press and the rise of Protestantism. What followed was centuries of warfare between the various dnominations. Copernicus and Galileo were both persecuted by a church that would not accept that the Earth was round and not the "center of the universe. The battle for the "Right to think" goes on today...

I fail to see how you can make the statement about us blindly accepting Evolution? There are thousands of documents and endless amounts of physical evidence to support that theory. On the other hand, there is only the Bible to support Creationism.

You can not comprehend the physical evolution of life yet you are quite ready to accept a God saying "Behold..." and poof! it's all there.

I am saddened by the fact that the world is not as simple a place as the scriptures would have us believe (as they are interpreted by religious scholars).

The simple truth is that the process of evolution is not contrary to the Bible. As wiser men thn me pointed out...Who says the six days were just twenty four hours.

From Cain's wife Who came from the land of Nod (another creation going on else where?)there are inconsistencies to the bible. Those who can read...and have the mind to question wonder about those inconsistencies.

I do not beleave in a God. But I would like to think that-if I am wrong...The great being would have gave us the right to think so we could understand the way the miracle of life the way it really happened...A far more complex and wonderful process than the simple version that the children of Isreal passed down in their fables.

Frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

The Right to Think (that which you would call free will) has been hotly contested by organised religion since it's inception......... {And all the rest of the comments about the origins of the Bible and Christianity}

This is an entirely different discussion and not the least bit relavent to whether the theory of evolution (as it is popularly accepted) is possible or not. I'll not disagree with the fact that man has made a terrible mess out of Christianity...just as it has with every other endevour that involves more than a few individuals. We're flawed beings and are prone to the most hideous intentions and mistakes. The merits of Christianity and the rights and wrongs thereof are simply not a part of this discussion.

I fail to see how you can make the statement about us blindly accepting Evolution? There are thousands of documents and endless amounts of physical evidence to support that theory.

Yes, there are thousands of documents written by people saying many of the same things over and over. I don't see this as proof. And the physical evidence is questionable at best, frequently with other plausible explanations, and frequently built upon a foundation of supposition.

On the other hand, there is only the Bible to support Creationism.

Actually, there is a lot more evidence that that, but since it's not "popular" to discuss such a thing, the evidence remains tucked away in the libraries and collections of a relatively few scholars and can only be found if one wishes to look. Unlike evolution, which is assumed to be fact in just about every medium we encounter. HOWEVER...my intent is NOT to convince anyone that creation is true, all or in part. My intent is to question the validity of the current, popular theory of evolution, and that is all.

You can not comprehend the physical evolution of life yet you are quite ready to accept a God saying "Behold..." and poof! it's all there.

Once again, you make broad assumptions about what I do or don't accept. I have not stated one way or the other. All I have said is that they both take a degree of faith.

I am saddened by the fact that the world is not as simple a place as the scriptures would have us believe (as they are interpreted by religious scholars).

I don't find the complexity of the world to be a sad thing. Nor do I believe the Scriptures imply in any way that the world is anything but vastly and intricately complex.

The simple truth is that the process of evolution is not contrary to the Bible. As wiser men thn me pointed out...Who says the six days were just twenty four hours.

These are among the many questions I ask and seek answers for.

From Cain's wife Who came from the land of Nod (another creation going on else where?)there are inconsistencies to the bible. Those who can read...and have the mind to question wonder about those inconsistencies.

Me too. I'm not a scholar of things Cain, so I have no idea what this means. I have always believed that humans had been on the earth long enough for many, many generations to have multiplied and spread and form distinct communitities. Humans were so long-lived in those earliest days that the first two generations would still be around...and therefore Cain left his own community and found a different one. But I have never studied that particular issue...and again, I should point out that it is irrelavent to the discussion at hand.

There are many things in the Bible that can be questioned. Trouble is, too many look at those questions and say "Oops..that doesn't make sense...must mean the whole thing is worthless" without bothering to actually seek out the answers and understand.

I do not beleave in a God. But I would like to think that-if I am wrong...The great being would have gave us the right to think so we could understand the way the miracle of life the way it really happened...A far more complex and wonderful process than the simple version that the children of Isreal passed down in their fables.

I believe God does give us the right to think and question...and to understand, so far as our human capacity will allow. But He also requires a degree of faith in Him...something that He built into all of us. And if you don't have faith in Him, you WILL have faith in something else...such as theoretical science. But how can you be so sure you place your faith in the right thing?
-----
--Judy

1.0 red cape gopher (Caesar)
1.0 bearded dragon (Shaggy)

ball-pythons.net
(It's NOT just ball pythons!)

The flip side to your statement that people blindly believe whatever is taught to them (which isn't the case unless the person is cattle in which case they probably still believe in weapons of mass distraction) is that it is a total cop out to feel that its too complex to comprehend and therefore come to the conclusion that it can't have occured.

I find it very suprising in this day and age that people still believe in creation. That is the true case of blindly believing whatever is taught to them (where is the evidence for creation?)

I'm not disputing the fact that people are just as likely to blindly believe religious teachings as they are theoretical science. I deeply believe that the same willingness to question should be applied to all aspects of life, not just the ones you find easy to agree or disagree with.

I find it surprising that people accuse others of being "close minded" and "blind" if they don't follow along with everything about evolution...and yet are so close minded themselves as to be shocked anyone else would have some other belief.

And this is where such a discussion usually melts down into a pissing contest. We've ceased discussing and questioning facts and have begun picking on each other's beliefs. It would probably be best to end it here.
-----
--Judy

1.0 red cape gopher (Caesar)
1.0 bearded dragon (Shaggy)

ball-pythons.net
(It's NOT just ball pythons!)

...that it is a total cop out to feel that its too complex to comprehend and therefore come to the conclusion that it can't have occured.

I never said it was too complex to comprehend. Calculus is complex. Quantum physics is complex. The cell structure of a tree is complex. I don't have any trouble believing these things exist, even though I don't fully understand how they work and couldn't possibly begin to explain them.

It's that the very foundation of theoretical evolution makes so little sense. It's not "complex"...it's inconceivable. And it brings about the exact same radical belief that religion does. Go figure.....
-----
--Judy

1.0 red cape gopher (Caesar)
1.0 bearded dragon (Shaggy)

ball-pythons.net
(It's NOT just ball pythons!)

"I can't comprehend how entire complex organs came to be...."

Then you wrote....

"I never said it was too complex to comprehend."

You opened the door on The freedom to think when you said that we "blindly accept the theory of evolution.."

How are the fossils that are found and the story (evidence)they tell "questionable at best?" that repeditive liturature is based on fossil evidence. How (since you state your lack of knowledge) are you qualified to over rule such evidence as you do here. If you think some thing is incorrect....tell us how and why.

For someone who says their "intent is not to convince anyone that creation is true"...sweeping statements about people blindy accepting evolution is a pretty good imatation of some one who is out to do just that.

"Faith in theoretical science"...? Science is not a religion. it is a tool for understanding the knowledge that is before us.

I am a scholar of sorts in that I have read the Bible from cover to cover (more than once...as well as other religions ...and science as well) in my quest for answers...

But to explain to you what is meant by "Cain". According to the Bible...Cain was the son of Adam and Eve which were the first man and woman on Earth. They had another son Able. Cain left his family and went to the land of Nod where he "knew his wife." This has been a bone of contention between scholars for centuries as it poises two questions. The first is Where did she come from...If Adam and Eve just had sons at that point? This clearly indicates that the creation of Man occured in posibly more than one place.

The second question I will not relate out of decorum, but should be obvious. I brought it up to point out the flaw of interpreting the Bible litteraly. As many Anti-evolutionists do. The mistake here is not one of "oops...that doesn't make sense...etc. It is a matter that some people look into the question and find the answer is lacking...

As to questioning the "validity of the current popular theory of evolution"... You have not stated what you are opposed to and what parts you agree with. Since you have made blanket statements about all of us "blindly accepting it" and not a single statement in support of any part of evolutionary theory, it seems you pretty much oppose anything that is not creationism.

So please enlighten us on how it is wrong to assume you are anything other than a creationist? You say you are not "a scholar of things" yet you state "facts" to people who are like you know more than they do.

As far as the arguement that the arguement must end as this is where things degenerate... With all due respect, I could not let you fire your last volley without responding to your points...that would be accepting them by silence.

I would sincerely hope that you expand to those sources you mentioned. Read in the sciences of Biology, Paleontology and Geology...Also Read a real Bible...not one of the recent "politcally correct" rewrites. You should really become more familiar with all sides of the question before you chose to discredit evidence that you admit you do not have the knowledge to properly interpret, over people who have.

That you ask questions is good...but you need to be able to understand the answers when they are presented...By either side.

Frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

"I can't comprehend how entire complex organs came to be...."

"I never said it was too complex to comprehend."

That is exactly right...I never did say it was "too complex" to comprehend. The assertions of evolution seem IMPOSSIBLE...not "complex". The thing that is "complex" is US...each organ that makes up our bodies and the bodies of animals. Each cell that makes up those organs, and the cells of every type of plant. THOSE are amazingly complex. But I can comprehend their existence.

"Faith in theoretical science"...? Science is not a religion. it is a tool for understanding the knowledge that is before us.

You accept things that have not and cannot be explained. What else would you call that except faith? You have faith that your scientific theories are correct, regardless of any missing answers.

The first is Where did she come from...If Adam and Eve just had sons at that point? This clearly indicates that the creation of Man occured in posibly more than one place.

Nowhere does it say that Cain and Able were their only children, nor does it say how old Cain and Able were when that story took place. As I said...there could have been many, many generations already born and dispersed. But this is really a digression from the original point...

As to questioning the "validity of the current popular theory of evolution"... You have not stated what you are opposed to and what parts you agree with. Since you have made blanket statements about all of us "blindly accepting it" and not a single statement in support of any part of evolutionary theory, it seems you pretty much oppose anything that is not creationism.

Ok...here is what I find unbelievable about the theory of evolution as it is popularly understood: That an entire universe filled with amazing and wonderous things came to be from some random explosion of what was once nothingness. That life sprang up from nowhere. And I can't believe that the vastly complicated and intricate world we know could have randomly came to be as the first little spark of life changed itself into countless millions of other life forms.

To believe what I've listed above seems to require much faith, whether you will call it that or not. What I DO believe is that God created the universe and our world and all the life on it. How long did it take? I don't know. I is possible that the world is millions (billions?) of years old...or it is possible that it only APPEARS to be so old. It is very possible that the first animals God created bear only a basic resemblance to what we recognize today because they have had to adapt to vastly changing climates and circumstances...so the bears who were born with thicker fur survived better than those who didn't...but they were still bears. I believe it is possible that animals could have adapted so far as to "evolve" into multiple sub-species...or maybe even actual species within the same genera. But an elephant has always been an elephant, even if it was once smaller and had a shorter trunk.

So please enlighten us on how it is wrong to assume you are anything other than a creationist?

It's not wrong to assume I believe God created our world and all that is in it. But you've made some specific assumptions about my beliefs that are just wrong.

As far as the arguement that the arguement must end as this is where things degenerate... With all due respect, I could not let you fire your last volley without responding to your points...that would be accepting them by silence.

Totally understandable...and I find myself in the same position...able to let some of your words go for the sake of brevity (although I think I sacrificed brevity a long time ago! LOL) but unable to let a few things go unanswered. Of course, we could be at this forever if we continue to feel that way. So I hope you'll understand that even if this is my last post on the issue, it doesn't mean I totally agree with everything you may respond with...nor that you've "scared" me off with your sizzling intellect. Fair enough? (And I will give the same benefit of the doubt if you don't respond to this.)

I would sincerely hope that you expand to those sources you mentioned. Read in the sciences of Biology, Paleontology and Geology...

I fully intend to. It's one of my biggest challenges since having kids, is realizing how much I want to learn and not having the time to do so. But I take what time I can.

Also Read a real Bible...not one of the recent "politcally correct" rewrites.

This is one of those wrong assumptions. What makes you think I read only "recent politically correct" translations of the Bible? I have a degree in theology and study far deeper into the Word that you could possibly know through this discussion.

That you ask questions is good...but you need to be able to understand the answers when they are presented...By either side.

I haven't gotten the answers that require understanding yet. But I really am looking. Perhaps God used a greater degree of "evolution" process during His creation, than I currently believe. Finding these answers will help me to understand this. I'm really not discounting them outright...but to think all this came about randomly and without some supernatural plan and intelligence behind it....no one has yet to provide a single answer of "how."
-
-----
--Judy

1.0 red cape gopher (Caesar)
1.0 bearded dragon (Shaggy)

ball-pythons.net
(It's NOT just ball pythons!)

Could you please explain the rise and fall of the dinosaurs? If the fossils were 'put there by God' then how come they aren't mentioned in the bible? Also, what about living fossils such as the tuatara? Further to this, how do you explain the evolution of antibiotic resistance in bacteria or malaria resistance to antimalarial drugs (as only two examples)?

> The thing that is "complex" is US...each organ that makes up our bodies and the bodies of animals. Each cell that makes up those organs, and the cells of every type of plant. THOSE are amazingly complex. But I can comprehend their existence.
>>

So what? What about protein evolution within our bodies, with the different proteins being adapted for different uses within our body and the ability of phylogenetic analysis to reconstruct the evolutionary history of multigene families?

>>You accept things that have not and cannot be explained. What else would you call that except faith? You have faith that your scientific theories are correct, regardless of any missing answers.

Ah but the key difference is that we search for evidence to answer a question. So what if everything is not explained, that is why research is on-going. The key difference is that there is a mountain of accumulated evidence for evolution but none for creation. Despite this, creationists seize on any missing data as proof that the entire thing is wrong. Can you refute any of the evolutionary data? Do you know or understand any of the data? If not then its pretty hypocritical and small-minded to dismiss it out of hand (and yes, we share a common ancestor with chimpanzes, please argue against the molecular evidence).

>>
>>Ok...here is what I find unbelievable about the theory of evolution as it is popularly understood: That an entire universe filled with amazing and wonderous things came to be from some random explosion of what was once nothingness. That life sprang up from nowhere. And I can't believe that the vastly complicated and intricate world we know could have randomly came to be as the first little spark of life changed itself into countless millions of other life forms.

This is a question that has kept philosophers and researchers busy throughout time. This is the basis of religion, to find supernatural answers to uncomprehendable phenomena. Earthquakes were once a sign of Gods displeasure, as was lightening. People have been murdered by the Church for daring to disagree with official interpreation of physical phenomena such as astrophysics.

>>
>>To believe what I've listed above seems to require much faith, whether you will call it that or not. What I DO believe is that God created the universe and our world and all the life on it. How long did it take? I don't know. I is possible that the world is millions (billions?) of years old...or it is possible that it only APPEARS to be so old. It is very possible that the first animals God created bear only a basic resemblance to what we recognize today because they have had to adapt to vastly changing climates and circumstances...so the bears who were born with thicker fur survived better than those who didn't...but they were still bears. I believe it is possible that animals could have adapted so far as to "evolve" into multiple sub-species...or maybe even actual species within the same genera. But an elephant has always been an elephant, even if it was once smaller and had a shorter trunk.
>>

Now your hedging your bet. How do you explain the emergence of entirely new life forms in the fossil layers. Please don't hide behind the classic security blanket of 'God works in mysterious ways' or a derivative thereof. How do you explain the almost real time evolution of bacteria?

>>>>This is one of those wrong assumptions. What makes you think I read only "recent politically correct" translations of the Bible? I have a degree in theology and study far deeper into the Word that you could possibly know through this discussion.

Then you will know that the Old Testament was a politically constructed document typing together the major cults of Christianity of the day, including the Vulgate and plagirising earlier Greek works. It is not 'the work of God' but the work of men with ulterior motives.

Ciao
Bryan
-----
Dr. Bryan Grieg Fry
Deputy Director
Australian Venom Research Unit
University of Melbourne

www.venomdoc.com

Could you please explain the rise and fall of the dinosaurs? If the fossils were 'put there by God' then how come they aren't mentioned in the bible? Also, what about living fossils such as the tuatara?

No, I can't explain dinosaurs, but I have a number of ideas. However, I really do believe this has gone on long enough, and at the risk of appearing to "run" for the question, I intend to make this my last post on this thread and will not get into a new topic like that. If you are really interested in my views (which would surprise me) then please feel free to e-mail and we can discuss it there where I am less subject to personal attacks for my beliefs.

... how do you explain the evolution of antibiotic resistance in bacteria or malaria resistance to antimalarial drugs (as only two examples)?

I have never stated that things can't adapt and change to better survive their environment. But the bacteria you mention is still bacteria, no matter how much it mutates to survive the drugs thrown at it.

People have been murdered by the Church for daring to disagree with official interpreation of physical phenomena such as astrophysics.

And Christians have been murdered throughout history for their beliefs...still are today in some countries. This point says nothing.

Now your hedging your bet. How do you explain the emergence of entirely new life forms in the fossil layers. Please don't hide behind the classic security blanket of 'God works in mysterious ways' or a derivative thereof. How do you explain the almost real time evolution of bacteria?

I am not hedging anything. I was asked to lay out specifically what I do believe about the evolutionary process and I did so. Why is that suddenly unacceptable? And I'll say it again...no matter how it "evolves" bacteria is still bacteria. Show me where it has become something other.

I'm finished with this thread now. If you are truly interested in my thoughts on any of this, my e-mail is available.

Good day to you, Dr. Fry.
-----
--Judy

1.0 red cape gopher (Caesar)
1.0 bearded dragon (Shaggy)

ball-pythons.net
(It's NOT just ball pythons!)

By your own words...

Repeadedly in this you have called me wrong when I have suggested that you were coming from a religious background which you denied. Now all of the sudden you claim to have a degree in Theology!

At first you don't know who Cain was...(do I have to bring up the quote again?) Now you "correct" me about him...incorrectly, I might add. And now you have "studied deeper than I could possibly know in this discussion".

First you are not a scholar...now you are....

This my dear is evolution!

I never said you read "recent pollitically correct translations"...I said-don't read them...A very big difference. Try answering qestions instead of trying to spin my words...Your not very good at it.

I am still waiting to hear intelligent arguements about the process we call evolution. Not some broad statement that is obscure enough to illustrate that you don't know what you are talking about.

For example...What are your thoughts on Natural Selection?

I will make it easy. Animals and/or plants compete for a particular niche. Those that survive-be they taller, shorter or in some way best adapted; pass their genes to the next generation. Eventually those best able to survive are what is left to reproduce....Your thoughts?

You say that you don't see how millions of living creatures could spring from one....But you blindly accept that millions of creatures could appear because a being says "Behold". You might as Bryan said (who has a much more impressive education than the one you profess), check on viruses. They are notorious for massive reproduction and mutation.

You make (still) the typical mistake that because I beleave that evolution is the process that caused life on this earth to be as it is, that I blindly accept everything that is theorised. There is a difference between blind faith and the process of figuring out a scientific puzzle. What has been said here is all the steps are not completely understood...that does not invalidate the entire concept.

That Judy is the thought processes of a fundimentaly religious person who accepts what their religion teaches without question.
Science, as you pointed out, is comprised of doubters. There is no Blind acceptance like there is in religion.

Once again I will say...Before you dismiss something as wrong, please present reasons like the rest of us do for that opinion. Maybe priests can get away with that in church...but this isn't church and here we appreciate something besides dismissals to back up your points.

Sorry if that is offensive...But you are misrepresenting yourself (one way as a layman who is not a scholar or the other...a bible scholar with a degree). I don't appreciate dishonesty...

Frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

Alright...this is my last post to you on this thread. The subject has gone from a discussion about evolution to an attack of me personally. I will use this last post to defend myself and then leave you to whatever thoughts you wish to express or keep to yourself.

It would seem that if a person disagrees with, and questions your views of how the world came to be, then they MUST be stupid, narrow-minded, uneducated, liars with an agenda. I am none of these things.

Repeadedly in this you have called me wrong when I have suggested that you were coming from a religious background which you denied. Now all of the sudden you claim to have a degree in Theology!

I did not claim that I did not have a religious background. Early on, I specifically said that I did. My mistake may have been in being niave enough to think I could discuss the merits of evolution and the questions I have about it WITHOUT bringing religion into it. As I stated once before, my questions about evolution were there long before I became a Christian. If I wasn't a Christian, I still wouldn't buy evolution as it is accepted today. You were wrong in your assumption that I brought up these questions because I am a Christian. That is what I was trying to say.

At first you don't know who Cain was...(do I have to bring up the quote again?)

Actually, yes you do. Where did I ever say I didn't know who Cain was??? All I said was that I am not a scholar of Cain...and I am not, education notwithstanding. I have not spent a great deal of time studying that particular person and his story. That certainly doesn't mean I don't know who he is, nor does it make me a liar when I offer some evidence that I do know what I'm talking about when it comes to the Word of God.

Now you "correct" me about him...incorrectly, I might add.

I didn't "correct" anything...I merely suggested a scenario that might explain an answer to the question that you brought up. Please explain to me how I am "wrong" in suggesting that?

And now you have "studied deeper than I could possibly know in this discussion".

I have studied, as I said. Deeply into many things...but of course not everything. I could not study indepth every character and story and situation in the Bible in an entire lifetime. But since I was trying NOT to turn this into a religious debate, I made no references to my background, so you could not know. You simply assumed (or appeared to have assumed) that I know nothing of either evolution nor the Bible.

First you are not a scholar...now you are....

A prime example of twisting words around to attack a person who doesn't see things your way. I said I was not a scholar of Cain's story. I said nothing one way or the other at that moment what my educational background was.

This my dear is evolution!

Thank you for the comic relief.

I never said you read "recent pollitically correct translations"...I said-don't read them...A very big difference. Try answering qestions instead of trying to spin my words...Your not very good at it.

You on the other hand...are a master at spinning someone's words to make them sound stupid and ignorant, I suppose? Is this a skill I should attain to? By telling me not to read them, you imply that I do. Otherwise, why say it at all?

I am still waiting to hear intelligent arguements about the process we call evolution. Not some broad statement that is obscure enough to illustrate that you don't know what you are talking about.

I wasn't trying to explain evolution...I was trying to ask questions about how it works.

For example...What are your thoughts on Natural Selection?

You don't care what my thoughts are.

I will make it easy. Animals and/or plants compete for a particular niche. Those that survive-be they taller, shorter or in some way best adapted; pass their genes to the next generation. Eventually those best able to survive are what is left to reproduce....Your thoughts?

I have no debate with this. I believe I said as much in my last post.

You say that you don't see how millions of living creatures could spring from one....But you blindly accept that millions of creatures could appear because a being says "Behold".

I have yet to see an alternative that makes any more sense.

You might as Bryan said (who has a much more impressive education than the one you profess), check on viruses. They are notorious for massive reproduction and mutation.

I was not trying to impress anyone with my education. Nor am I particularly impressed with Bryans, although I respect it. And yes...I know viruses and bacteria reproduce and mutate. But they are still viruses and bacteria. Show me evidence of either one becoming something else.

You make (still) the typical mistake that because I beleave that evolution is the process that caused life on this earth to be as it is, that I blindly accept everything that is theorised. There is a difference between blind faith and the process of figuring out a scientific puzzle. What has been said here is all the steps are not completely understood...that does not invalidate the entire concept.

That Judy is the thought processes of a fundimentaly religious person who accepts what their religion teaches without question.
Science, as you pointed out, is comprised of doubters. There is no Blind acceptance like there is in religion.

Why is it that my faith is God is "blind", but your faith in life springing up from completely random nothingness is not? I think perhaps we both make the mistake of saying the other person "blindly accepts" whatever is spoon-fed them simply because it is not something we accept ourselves. You don't know me and have no idea what tests my faith has gone through and what "proofs" I have in my life that prove it out to me without a shadow of a doubt. Yet you assume I just "blindly" accept whatever is told to me by some nebulous religious leader. You are just as guilty as you accuse me of being of sweeping all-inclusive statements and dismissing out of hand something you know nothing about.

But you are misrepresenting yourself (one way as a layman who is not a scholar or the other...a bible scholar with a degree). I don't appreciate dishonesty...

I may have been mistaken in my niave attempt to discuss evolution without bringing the religions debate into it...but I was in no way dishonest...as I believe I have explained above. But whether or not you believe me, or give me any sort of credit for being able to think and reason, is something I have no control over.

This is my last post to you on this matter. I'll make one more to Bryan to address something specific he said and I'll be through with this thread for good. (This last statement being made so that you don't accuse me of being dishonest or misleading.)

Good day to you, rearfang.
-----
--Judy

1.0 red cape gopher (Caesar)
1.0 bearded dragon (Shaggy)

ball-pythons.net
(It's NOT just ball pythons!)

Nice try at dodging both my own and Bryan's questions....Game over.

Frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

No.....not really. Judy answered everything pretty much in an intelligent manner and backed her answers up with experience and knowledge of what she was trying to keep the subject on. It would have been nice to see that from other posters and is not rocket science my friend.

Take care!

Billy

-----
Genesis 1:1

With all due respect BILLY. What posts did you read? She dodged questions from BGF and myself and pretended that she was not a scholar when she was (if you believe the story about having a Theolgy degree).

Never in any post did she give any reason-backed with facts as to what she found incorrect about the theory of Evolution. Instead she labeled things irrelevant or just said she felt we were not interested in her answers.

The only person I can think of that would beleave she gave good answers would be someone as religiously biased as she was.

I should note I am not anti-faith. I am opposed to the out of hand dismissal of knowledge that frequently comes with it.

It aint rocket science but it is science....

Frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

All very good questions. Just proving that you and I and everyone else still don't "understand how evolution works". I defer once again to my Carl Jung quote below.

-----
Martin Whalin
My Email

Quotes from guys named Carl:

"Science stops at the frontier of logic. Nature does not, she thrives on ground as yet untrodden by theory."
-Carl Jung

"It is foolish to let singleness of purpose deprive one of the joy and delectation of the many wonderful sights and sounds incidental to the quest."
-Carl Kauffeld

Your snake has a little mousie friend! :-D

I love that picture!
-----
--Judy

1.0 red cape gopher (Caesar)
1.0 bearded dragon (Shaggy)

ball-pythons.net
(It's NOT just ball pythons!)

I call that her "natural" selection. lol!
-----
Martin Whalin
My Email

Quotes from guys named Carl:

"Science stops at the frontier of logic. Nature does not, she thrives on ground as yet untrodden by theory."
-Carl Jung

"It is foolish to let singleness of purpose deprive one of the joy and delectation of the many wonderful sights and sounds incidental to the quest."
-Carl Kauffeld

I think you two have two choices here. (1) back off because this is one of those issues that does not get resolved. (2) bang your heads together for several posts till you come to the first conclusion.

The bottom line is...People of faith will only see what they beleave...and people of science will only beleave what they see.

Frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

Ok...Call me a fool for getting involved. The "Serpent" of Genisis is not a real serpent. The scriptures say Satan took upon him the form of the serpent to tempt Eve. (That is not an exact quote...but close enough, so please don't correct me there).

Later God in his wrath punishes the serpent-for a crime he did not commit. The serpent is condemned to crawl on his belly and eat dust...a clear indicator that the "Created" snake stood off the ground.

Biblicly the "serpent" has been frequently interpreted as standing upright and having limbs so it is was not created EXACTLY as it is today.

As to the science end of this...Boa constrictors and anacondas (which are primitive snakes) show vesigual pelvic girtles as well as renmants of hind limbs which are externaly visable as the "spurs".

Frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

>>I think you two have two choices here. (1) back off because this is one of those issues that does not get resolved. (2) bang your heads together for several posts till you come to the first conclusion."

Good point. The smart side of me agreed but the sucker in me dove right in. Just like I noticed your's did below. lol
-----
Martin Whalin
My Email

Quotes from guys named Carl:

"Science stops at the frontier of logic. Nature does not, she thrives on ground as yet untrodden by theory."
-Carl Jung

"It is foolish to let singleness of purpose deprive one of the joy and delectation of the many wonderful sights and sounds incidental to the quest."
-Carl Kauffeld

And people of faith AND science believe that God created science.

Katrina
(who believes in evolution but still has faith)

Shows you have an open mind....Bravo!

Frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

"Show me a fossil of a snake evolving from having legs to not having legs."

Link to the article

-----
Martin Whalin
My Email

Quotes from guys named Carl:

"Science stops at the frontier of logic. Nature does not, she thrives on ground as yet untrodden by theory."
-Carl Jung

"It is foolish to let singleness of purpose deprive one of the joy and delectation of the many wonderful sights and sounds incidental to the quest."
-Carl Kauffeld

nm
Link to article

-----
Martin Whalin
My Email

Quotes from guys named Carl:

"Science stops at the frontier of logic. Nature does not, she thrives on ground as yet untrodden by theory."
-Carl Jung

"It is foolish to let singleness of purpose deprive one of the joy and delectation of the many wonderful sights and sounds incidental to the quest."
-Carl Kauffeld

Yeah that's me....a sucker for correcting those little errors (lol). Nice fossil...wish I had it in my collection!

Frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

Honestly.....that shows something that could be construed as maybe a leg, but then again......it could have been a bone spur similar to what boas have. It could be a lot of things, and I would have liked to have seen the whole fossil skeleton if it exists.

Also...ask yourself this question: How does the number of years, 95 million, get figured out in this question of the age of this fossil? How did they come up with that theory?

As far as theories, like evolution, wouldn't it be somewhat more scientific to believe in something that doesn't have the foundation of chance? Chance being the one thing that glues evolution together and is the backbone. Also...to base beliefs on statements made by Darwin from his own Darwinian revolution of 1859, only 145 years ago, is that a safe bet? How would thru all this time that the earth had existed, up until when Darwin wrote his theories, could he, out of all people, been right on the origin of humanity, etc?

"We are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species, but the situation hasn't changed much....We have fewer examples of evolutionary transistion than we had in Darwin's time."--David M. Raup, " Conflicts between Darwin and Paleontology." 1979

Interesting discussion!

Take care!

Billy
-----
Genesis 1:1

Darwin was a quack. He didn't do anything but do a study and write a book about someone else's theory. And he represented incorrectly.
-----
Martin Whalin
My Email

Quotes from guys named Carl:

"Science stops at the frontier of logic. Nature does not, she thrives on ground as yet untrodden by theory."
-Carl Jung

"It is foolish to let singleness of purpose deprive one of the joy and delectation of the many wonderful sights and sounds incidental to the quest."
-Carl Kauffeld

I think it is cool that the universitys doing the work are religious universitys. I know that there is a proff at Brigham Young University studying evolution in reptiles. Sceloperus lizards when I was there a million years ago. Different stuff now, though I haven't kept up. Jack Sites.

In my own personal theory. God created things that have systems and adapt and evolve ....for me that is not hard to believe. Static systems wouldn't last long. Do I believe people evolved from apes...nope. But I do think every living thing evolves over time.

>>"Show me a fossil of a snake evolving from having legs to not having legs."
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Link to the article
>>
>>-----
>>Martin Whalin
>>My Email
>>
>>Quotes from guys named Carl:
>>
>>"Science stops at the frontier of logic. Nature does not, she thrives on ground as yet untrodden by theory."
>> -Carl Jung
>>
>>"It is foolish to let singleness of purpose deprive one of the joy and delectation of the many wonderful sights and sounds incidental to the quest."
>> -Carl Kauffeld
-----
Sonya

Haven't we warned you about tampering with the structure of a chaotic system?
Mrs. Neutron

Glad to see some one is exploring possibilities....Frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

so the Lord God said to the serpent,"because you have done this,
"cursed are you above all the livestock
and all the wild animals!
you will crawl on your belly
and you will eat dust
all the days of your life.
GENESIS 3:14

That is the quote I was referring to that proves that even the Bible suggests that serpents were different (before they were cursed to crawl on their belly) than they are today!

Thanks for the assist!

Frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

Great scripture to point out my friend! Brings up another interesting point.

I have always thought that maybe snakes did have legs, as to what you are referring to with that scripture. However, if that is so, that scripture, and the Bible itself, still has nothing to do with the theory of evolution and is actually a history book as well.

Also...that scripture AND the whole story of Adam and Eve being deceived by the serpent is about the fall of man and satan. It is the outline of how humanity needs a Saviour and how sin entered the world.

Take care!!!!!!

Billy
-----
Genesis 1:1

Yes it is a great moral lesson. The pity of it though is that it is the earliest example of an innocent being condemned for a crime it didn't commit.

As I pointed out above, the Bible says Satan took the form of the serpent to tempt Eve. It does not say that the serpent it'self does. Yet the serpent...not Satan is punnished.

I always figured the serpent got a raw deal because the Hebrews who passed the Bible down had a snake prejudice. Likely due to the reverence the Egyptians and other's had for them.

Frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

Just because you don't have a physical object to look at doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
I could argue the same thing with your God. Show me your God and then I'll believe he exists.

Also, please note that there isn't a fossil for EVERY single animal or plant that ever lived or even existed. Did you know there is only one skeleton of the giant ground sloth of north america? Do you think thatw as the only one that existed? Of course not...there were probably once hundreds of thousands of them.

Now if you think about this, wouldn't you think there was probably an animal or two (or MUCH more) that was never fossilized in any way and thus we will never know it existed?