Snake De-Molted
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
25-07-2013, 06:07 AM
RE: Snake De-Molted
(24-07-2013 06:28 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Interesting tidbit I found online:

It's rather interesting that evolutionists believe that snakes once had legs and lost them. This sounds very much like the Genesis account of the serpent in the Garden of Eden.

Obviously, evolutionists don't accept the story of the first temptation. As far as they are concerned, the snake evolved from some reptile which originally had legs. But evolutionists have always tried to find some evolutionary advantage to losing legs and, thus, justify their theory. In 1973 an unpublished study suggested that garter snakes use 30 percent less energy for locomotion than they would if they had legs. That study was preliminary and never published. But that didn't stop evolutionists from saying that they had found the reason that snakes don't have legs.

Now, a much more exhaustive study done at the University of California at Irvine, has shown that this evolutionary explanation is false. Outfitting black racer snakes with oxygen masks and using modern precision equipment, including a snake-sized treadmill, researchers have shown that snakes use as much energy as a creature of the same weight to get around. The supposed evolutionary advantage to not having legs has disappeared under the bright light of scientific investigation.

And so yet another so-called scientific claim that the Bible has been proven wrong fails in the light of careful science.

Source: http://www.creationmoments.com/radio/tra...-evolution

Not sure that "evolutionists" have anything to say whatsoever about the first temptation. An atheist might, but asking an evolutionary biologist about alternative theories of abiogenesis would be somewhat akin to respecting the political opinions of a minor celebrity.
But I digress, my answer to your statement is "So What?" All you have proven is that snakes lost none of their motive abilities by losing their legs, and in fact may have actually improved them. Which kind of proves evolutionary theory in my mind
And black racer snakes in oxygen masks sound awesome. Next time could they have frikken laser beams on their heads too?

The secret to a happy life is lowering your expectations to the point where they are already met
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes PeterKA's post
25-07-2013, 07:22 AM
RE: Snake De-Molted
(25-07-2013 06:07 AM)PeterKA Wrote:  An atheist might, but asking an evolutionary biologist about alternative theories of abiogenesis would be somewhat akin to respecting the political opinions of a minor celebrity.

Umm, no.

Many evolutionary biologists have contributed to hypotheses on abiogenesis.
There is no contradiction there.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-07-2013, 07:48 AM
RE: Snake De-Molted
(25-07-2013 07:22 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(25-07-2013 06:07 AM)PeterKA Wrote:  An atheist might, but asking an evolutionary biologist about alternative theories of abiogenesis would be somewhat akin to respecting the political opinions of a minor celebrity.

Umm, no.

Many evolutionary biologists have contributed to hypotheses on abiogenesis.
There is no contradiction there.

OK, I'll bite Smile A contribution to a hypothesis does not make a theory. Most specialists in abiogenesis are either bio or physical chemists, and it is they who assemble the information from their own and other sources to construct their theories for testing. An evolutionary biologist, like my fictitious minor celebrity, may contribute to the conversation but would not be the one who I would look to for the answer.

The secret to a happy life is lowering your expectations to the point where they are already met
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-07-2013, 12:58 PM (This post was last modified: 29-07-2013 01:05 PM by ghostexorcist.)
RE: Snake De-Molted
I located the unpublished 1973 abstract that was cited as support for snakes using less energy than quadrupeds. I can honestly see why it was referenced by several publications. Firstly, the abstract was published in a respected journal, the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology Journal. This means it is a trusted source. Second, the abstract provides data for the experiment (see below). The fact that this "pilot study" (as one source called it) was later tested and refuted shows that science is self-correcting. This is how advances are made.

[Image: kh1y.png]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like ghostexorcist's post
29-07-2013, 02:01 PM
RE: Snake De-Molted
But unlike science, PJ is not self-correcting. Additionally, PJ drops shit science and then doesn't even have the decency to peek back in.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like devilsadvoc8's post
29-07-2013, 02:11 PM
RE: Snake De-Molted
(29-07-2013 02:01 PM)devilsadvoc8 Wrote:  But unlike science, PJ is not self-correcting. Additionally, PJ drops shit science and then doesn't even have the decency to peek back in.

Well, but it's not a waste of time so long as some of us learned something!

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-07-2013, 02:37 PM
RE: Snake De-Molted
(29-07-2013 02:11 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(29-07-2013 02:01 PM)devilsadvoc8 Wrote:  But unlike science, PJ is not self-correcting. Additionally, PJ drops shit science and then doesn't even have the decency to peek back in.

Well, but it's not a waste of time so long as some of us learned something!

But we already knew he was an idiot. I suppose every trial increases the statistical significance of the finding...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-07-2013, 03:35 PM
RE: Snake De-Molted
(29-07-2013 02:37 PM)morondog Wrote:  But we already knew he was an idiot. I suppose every trial increases the statistical significance of the finding...

There is that.

But it also prompted me to learn a little more about comparative motion analysis and the evolutionary history of snakes. So there's that too.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like cjlr's post
29-07-2013, 05:00 PM
RE: Snake De-Molted
(24-07-2013 06:28 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  It's rather interesting that evolutionists believe that snakes once had legs and lost them. This sounds very much like the Genesis account of the serpent in the Garden of Eden.

So....
If evolution is true....
we must accept the genesis account of creation?
I'm not quite following.

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-07-2013, 06:42 PM
RE: Snake De-Molted
(29-07-2013 05:00 PM)Hafnof Wrote:  
(24-07-2013 06:28 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  It's rather interesting that evolutionists believe that snakes once had legs and lost them. This sounds very much like the Genesis account of the serpent in the Garden of Eden.

So....
If evolution is true....
we must accept the genesis account of creation?
I'm not quite following.

Evolutionists think snakes once had legs.
In Genesis, serpents were cursed to slither in the dirt, thus implying they walked once.

Therefore; Evolutionists must believe the account of spontaneous creation of Genesis.

Fool-proof logic right there.

The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
"Anti-environmentalism is like standing in front of a forest and going 'quick kill them they're coming right for us!'" - Jake Farr-Wharton, The Imaginary Friend Show.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Free Thought's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: