To this day many lizards have a tendancy to lose their legs, there are many species of legless lizards.
The exact evolutionary process which caused snake ancestors to lose their legs is irrelevant to this discussion, the dispute is not IF snakes evolved from lizards it's HOW and WHY.
Snakes even have a vestigial lung, thats right, only one lung works, the other is still there but is tiny and useless, my pet python has clearly visible vestigial legs as well
That is not true, the aquatic origin is still around but the animal was still a lizard-like reptile, however recent discovery in argentina show a definate snake that still had rear legs but was a terestrial burrowing animal.
Animals do not just sprout legs out of nothing, the first legs came from fins, in the process of losing their legs it appears there were stages of loss and gain, modern snakes are not growing legs, please site one legit scientist that makes that claim
Its funny how you want to belief that you are pointing out violations of the philosophy of science when you yourself have done it all along.
Science is about the aquisition and apllying of knowledge and therefore theories must have been constructed from the data. If you can make no positive proclamation (promote a specific origin) then you are devoid of evidence, removing accountability and not doing science at all.
"therefore theories must have been constructed from the data"
There is NO data for clear brille forming to protect from dirt particles, NO data for non-burrowing becoming burrowing becoming non-burrowing again to snakes, NO data for ancestors losing ears, NO data for losing legs to make burrowing easier.
100% pure fantasy. Believers of water/land ancestors of snakes pretend 'fiction' is science.
Snake origin theories are constructed from imagination.
"There is NO data for clear brille forming to protect from dirt particles"
Anyone who has studied the genes or the homologues to the brille and a fusion of the upper and lower eyelid as well as different varieties of brille among reptiles.
"NO data for losing legs to make burrowing easier."
If you ignore the fossils of legged snakes, vestiges, atavisms and gene sequence.
Its a shame you can't see what you don't want to and accuse the experts of using imagination.
"Experts" fill in black holes of logic rife missing empirical evidence, with imagination. Brille, losing ears, legs, burrowing then land dwelling again, all 100% fiction. Which is why there is not one claim of empirical evidence for this alleged 'protosnake'.
The links provided (Lenny Flank) hint at an alleged ancestor of unknown origin, but never provides evidence of existance. Takes this fictional being, invents a story to replace missing data based on a 'belief'
'proto' in evolutionism, is a desperate attempt to fill a missing evidence (black hole) with fictional animals, of which, no evidence has ever been found to support their existence. Evolutionisms' believers swallow 'protoanything' as incontestable fact, instead of realizing the concocted animal is completely conceptual and 100% fictional.
@teddiaustin what u mean the literaly tons of transitional fossils between fish to pmphibian then reptile split into bird and mammals then thousands from first homo africanus to homo sapien look up donexodus2 aronra or cdk007
"If you ignore the fossils of legged snakes, vestiges, atavisms and gene sequence"
IF there is so much evidence available, then please tell me WHY, Lenny Flank admits, "The "burrowing ancestors" theory has, however, come under some attack recently".
Even 'scientists' disagree with the 'burrowing' ancestor fictional account. And I humbly agree with the dissenters. Difficult to attack empirical evidence, easy to attack a fantasy.
You try to dismiss me as if I am the lone dissenter.
"NO data for non-burrowing becoming burrowing becoming non-burrowing again to snakes"
You are saying that no burrowing snakes exist and they are not the most primitive variety? You are saying that aboreal snakes have brille not because their ancestors needed it but for no reason at all? Really?
"snakes ONLY produce snakes"
This of course ignores the existence of legged snakes and cladistics.
It also suggests snakes appeared fully formed out of either nothing or non-life
"You are saying that no burrowing snakes exist and they are not the most primitive variety?"
Nope, I'm saying that there is no empirical evidence of any above ground snake losing legs to burrow, later deciding to live above land. The 'theory' is 100% fictional imagination.
IF sea dwelling ancestor to snakes is the correct version, the land to burrowing to land sgain is 100% fiction. IF the land dwelling, burrowing, land dwelling ancestry is correct, the sea dwelling ancestry is 100% fiction.
"Nope, I'm saying that there is no empirical evidence of any above ground snake losing legs to burrow, later deciding to live above land."
This is untrue but I will give you the benefit of making this claim anyway.
As I pointed out earlier there is overwhelming and irrefutable evidence of snakes evolving fro legged lizards, the jury is out on why (aquatic or burrowing adaptation or perhaps both)
Uncertainty on one point does not destroy certainty on other points
unfortunately, 'irrefutable evidence' relies on imaginary conceptual animals.
Jury is out? Well, well, well, we agree on one thing. 'Uncertainty' is exactly that, no empirical evidence of fact to support the 'proto' imaginations.
IF aquatic origin of snakes is correct every single leg losing land/underground/land based theory is completely asinine.
My job? Show the massive holes in the theories that are believed regardless of missing evidence & inclusion of mythological animals as 'evidence'
Najash, Haasiophis, pachyrachis and Eupodophis are not imaginary nor conceptuals. We have their fossils and they are transitional between legged squamates and snakes
Najash was a burrowing creature whereas haasiophis was found in marine deposits.
There are no proto imaginations. Why would you suggest this when you can see the fossils for yourself?
There are also leg-making genes in snakes further exposing their lizard ancestry
Being able to name resplendent depths of evidence for the evolution of snakes you would forgive me for being confused as to why you truly think that you can tout a fact as invalid when there are at least two tenable explanations for it.
That is why you fail and evolution, as always, comes out on top.
We have the evidence, we have the fossils, we win.
@teddiaustin like i said tons of fossils dna paleontology genetics homologies every prediction made by evolution made and confirmed never one contradicting peice of evidence donexodus2 aronra or cdk007 look it up and learn the facts u and me every human is an ape
"People observed maggots emanating from meat, 'proving maggots are in meat. however they missed the flied laying eggs"
Exactly, so it took another observation to disprove one hypothesis and solidify the new one.
That's how science works, it never proves it can only disprove. And when observations are made they made be constructed into a working theory, That theory is tested by making discoveries and predictions and if they are successful they are published
Meat -> maggots shows accepted 'scientific' observations/conclusions can be ridiculous.
Bias and fantasy play a huge part in scientific observations. Witnesses to the same accident often have diverging views.
For 'science' it HAS to be observable, testable, repeatable and verifiable. Imagination is NEVER called 'science' except 'science fiction' (snake evolution) & should have a mandatory disclaimer warnings.
A movie critic opines about a specific movie, positive proclamations not required.
"Meat -> maggots shows accepted 'scientific' observations/conclusions can be ridiculous"
Soo, because a pre-enlightenment belief was wrong...snake evolution must be wrong? seriously?
"Bias and fantasy play a huge part in scientific observations."
Actually quite the opposite. Early geologists scoured the Earth looking for evidence of a global flood but instead found evidence of uniformitarian principles and therefore changed their bias.
"A movie critic opines about a specific movie, positive proclamations not required."
1. Science and movies are entirely different disciplines. I can't believe I need to explain that
2. Movie critics can give legitimate criticisms while you are making arguments from personal incredulity
3. Critics of scientific theory *are* expected to have a well-constructed alternate theory that accounts for all data suppotive of the original PLUS other data. Movie critics merely need popular support
Lenny Flank: "Based on these similarities, some herpetologists have theorized that an ancient group of monitor-like lizards began to follow a burrowing way of life"
Yes. Simply look up the works of these herpetologists and you can see the emperical evidence they use instead of just the conclusion drawn from them after reading a pop science article.
A critics job is never completed.... I merely open up dialogue proving missing evidence and fictional beliefs are held steadfastly by the religious followers of evolution, and am called names.
LMAO
If one can't dispute the facts, call the messenger names. Evolution is easy to mock, the believers themselves offer the foundation of lunacy.
The sources you actually give provide links (and in many cases describe themselves) how these features developed. It would have helped if you used a reputable source and not just a pop science article as well.
If there are two well supported hypotheses the intelligent thing is not to dicount them both.
Quantum theory and relativity are contradictory as are the various models of atomic structure.
Yet you single out evolutionary biology because it disagrees with your religious mythology
Links provided merely imagine how features developed. Science is NOT supposed to be works of fantasy & vivid imaginations.
Neither hypothesis on snake evolution is supported by science (testable, repeatable, observable). I humbly & correctly single out these evolutionary teachings as fables.
'Acceptability (of a scientific hypothesis) is judged in terms of the degree to which observations and experimentations can be reproduced. ' MS Encarta
"In every way that the evolutionary ancestry of snakes *can* be tested it has confirmed"
That's actually a point for the 'other side'.
Science HAS to be observed, testable and repeatable. Snake evolution has no such validity and is imagination. Embryonic features does not "prove" snakes lost legs. Drawing conclusions where none can be: tested, repeated, or observed = imagination.
Water ancestry vs land ancestry: each believes other side is wrong, I agree with them, they are BOTH wrong.
"Science HAS to be observed testable and repeatable"
And as I pointed out snake evolution is both testable and tested. The way that you move the goalposts and convolute experiments from your own ignorance rather than acknowledge those that know what they are doing when they study the fossils, genes, phenotypes and biogeography.
To sat they cannot be repeated tested or obseved is simply lying because you don't want to accept it did happen
The reason both hypotheses exist is not because each believe the other to be wrong but because the evidence supports both so far without a clinching fossil or genetic find to rule out one of the two possibility.
Both exist because they are so accurate (If you want to criticise that, critise quantum theory vs relativity as well. Same principle)
You seem determined to deny that the 'what' and 'how' are so verified by focussing on the 'where'
You keep saying these words however clearly none of the evidence shown particularly specifically on the evolution of snakes is a hallucination or imagination.
For example you could hardly call the modern anal spurs in boas an imagination nor the more pronounced atavisms in other snakes of reduced hindlimbs.
You couldn't call the fossils of snakes with legs and toes as well as the predicted find of HOX genes supported by ontogeny imagination
This was a very poorly made video but I tolerated watching through the whole thing.
I don't exactly see what part of this you actually have a problem with.
Sure, you seem to be inclined to ridiculing it as much as possible with oversimplification etc and playing off the fact that this seems counterintuitive to your own impatient mindset.
However at no point do you address why none of this actually happened (and instead gave several links outlining how we know it did)
When i said "doesn't make any sense" - I was referring to the objective of the video, as opposed to evolution itself.
You mention the lunacy of evolution. What lunacy would this be? The modern evolutionary synthesis has an overwhelming amount of supporting evidence and there is no alternate theory (to my knowledge) which explains the observed changes in populations.
not a bad vid but could be better, i actually believe that snakes evolved from burrowing lizards, i'm doing a piece of work on it for college and i discovered some interesting info, for example the 'anal spurs' on most boas and pythons are made of bone right? well they have 1 each side of thier body, this could mean that they used to be legs, but through evolution are starting to become less prominate, meaning that snakes could have had legs, i mean we know they like to burrow anyway not bad vid
i'm not saying i discount the aqauatic version i'm just saying that the land based version is just as viable, the aqactic version is most likely correct cause at some stage the snake must have evolved from sea creatures (all animals migrating to sea theory) i'm just saying that snakes are likely to have been burrowing lizards cause of their cousins now days (if you look on the internet for 'snake eyed skinks' you will see an animal very similar to a snake, but with legs) and they are canivorous
"i'm just saying that snakes are likely to have been burrowing lizards" what empiricial EVIDENCE do you have to support your belief that snakes ancestors were lizards?
That my watch workings looks kinda like Big Ben's workings makes no evolutionary inference.
Only 100% imagination can draw any link between skinks and any missing alleged ancestorial pre-snake 'lizard' of an unknown entity.
One cannot use 'reason' as a substitute for evidence.
Snakes that LOOK similar in an embryonic state to something else, doesn't mean they were ever lizards.
Science is observable, testable, repeatable, verifiable. Your belief is 100% opinion. Opinion is not 'science'.
In the above video, you will see that the 'other' (incompatible) theory (100% unsupported in evidence as well) is that snakes ancestors were aquatic, not land lizards.
I merely show contrary opinions, theories & beliefs are NOT a substitiute for ZERO scientific 'evidence'.
If the aquatic ancestry theory is correct, your 'leg' appearance in an embryonic state is completely illusionary and a mindlessly irrelevant tangent. That is where I am on BOTH opposing views of snake evolution - Imagination required.
Science has no clue as to the alleged evolution of snakes. Everything is imaginary and fantasy, but 'believed' by a sincere but misguided foundation of snake mythologies (clear brille from dirt, legs growing or receding, ears, venom due to eyes of primates etc.)
You're denying the simple fact that the embryonic leg is present, no matter what you say, it's an observable trait, unlike some random person walking on water. Snakes are not the only animals that have embryonic features that reveal their past you know.
unfortunatly as you said it can not be proven, and i dought it ever will, because snakes skeletons are so fragile that we may never get a 100% garrenteed fossil proving either way, so 'i believe' that it will be a long time (if ever) to prove either way, at the moment everything (even what scientists say) is just speculation and guess work.
calm down, its a belief, everyone is entilted to different beliefs, and mine is that snakes evolved from lizards, it seems impossible that such an effective predator hasn't evolved to better itself, if you beleive otherwise then thats your opion and i won't argue with it, but i will make one suggestion, a good aguement sees all points of veiw so in the futre consider others veiw and include them in your aguement don't discount everything you disagree with thats it from me
ok i've just got to say this last thing, isn't science PART opinion, i mean you can't rly say oh yes the earth was created exactly 10 billion years ago and have 100% proof of it, u can have fossils that prove there was SOMETHING around 10 billion years ago that fossil could have lived a billion years then died, science is not exact and that is what u must consider, at some degree there will be opinions and fact mixed together, it is unavoidable so opinions and science are interlinked.
"Science can deal only with what is verifiable, observable, testable"
"Science relies on observable evidence that is testable & verifiable"
"If something cannot be physically observed/verified &/or subjected to rigorous scientific methods, then it is cannot be considered to be in the realm of science"
Opinions are NOT science.
Mixing facts w/ opinion is evidence of the religious aspects of evolution.
How about this LUNACY - an arms race in eyes! 'cuz o' 'snakes'
"An evolutionary arms race between early snakes and mammals triggered the development of improved vision and large brains in primates, a radical new theory SUGGESTS.
The IDEA, PROPOSED by Lynne Isbell, an anthropologist at the U of C, Davis, SUGGESTS that snakes and primates share a long and intimate history, one that forced both groups to evolve new strategies as each attempted to gain the upper hand"
hmmmm..... I quote experts in evolution and it is I that has no idea how evolution works?
That is pretty funny! Ridiculously funny (or just plain ridiculous)
I find it rather odd that statements made by evolutionists (apparently the 'experts'), are not accepted by the useful idiots that are brainwashed so thoroughly, they can reject evolution's very own disclaimers, as if the disclaimers were never stated.
I merely highlight the disclaimers (with sources!) for all useful idiots to digest
I checked your sources. You dumbed the process down so much it bore little resemblance to the actual process at all. Either that, or you just made it all up because you couldn't be bothered to really read and understand what was being said. Laughable, really.
The 'quotes' I use in the video, are actual quotes. If you are saying that the writers 'quoted' are dumbing down evolution, tell them, I ALREADY know evolution is dumb.
Oh, sure, they're actual quotes, but not from evolution 'experts.' They're not even snake 'experts.'
You googled 'snakes' and found some kids book report, and then used that to make your silly and arrogant video. Get an education and stop wasting your time setting up straw men.
So Lenny Flank is merely a kid who wrote a book report?
LMAO
You're dismissing one of America's noted experts in all things reptilian! Please write Lenny Flank and tell him he is a kid.
It is a bit odd (but not unforseen) that an evolutionist like you HAS TO dimiss the specific incoherent ramblings of your fellow believers. They make you (and evolution) look silly, so you have o go with plan B: DENY, DENY, DENY.
Al the other sources (snakes losing things)are 'kids'???
I was talking about Mark Levinson - that piece from the Lankanews site.
But no matter. You looked at some information about snake evolution, decided it's more realistic to believe in creationism, then made a very stupid video in which you showed yourself to be an anti-science ignoramus, with a chip on his shoulder because you clearly "DON'T GET IT."
So the video makes snake evolution look stupid because the beleivers in snake evolution make stupid comments (that I merely quote)? No?!?!?!?!
I do 'get it'. Snake evolution is 100% fable and the shown views & quotes from evolutionists PROVE it.
Funny no one dares deny the 'losing ears, eyelids, legs' as lunacy. One HAS to protect evolution at ALL costs, even if it means supporting the ridiculous claims of evolutionists.
The video looks stupid because it is an oversimplified view of how evolution happens. You dumbed it down for your own purposes because you can't be bothered to understand what evolution does or the concept of geologic time.
Take a course. If you end up STILL not believing in evolution after being taught by a real expert, then at least your videos will be better for the new information.
It does not matter how one tries to complicate a silly fable, it is still a silly fable.
I find it odd that you don't agree with the statements int he video, only hat it oversimplifies snake evolution. That must mean I got it right and accurate in this abridged version!
I am still waiting for you to point out any 'facts of evolution' in the snake evolution video. I compiled the video and I hate to tell you, there were no 'facts' in the entire video. The video merely highlights the imaginary tales as told by evolutionists themselves.
I just looked closer at that lankanews site, too. The history of snakes bit is on Mark Levinson's homepage, whoever he is...but he is NOT an evolution expert.
My dear, deluded boy. That's the personal site of some nerdy guy with Victoria's Secret fashion show on his home page as well as a page where he does what appears to be a high school book report on the evolution of the snake.
I'm majoring in psychology and critical thinking. Just a few problems with your rules. Because there are multiple unproven theories out there i'm sure the only competent respected scientists there are for you are the ones that follow your line of beliefs. And of course anyone that presents a finding that doesn't agree with your scientific belief will come off as unwise and arrogant because thats your perception of them. Perception is everything. Take care - Merry Christmas :).
Anyone who presents a scientific finding must undergo peer review. All scientific theories undergo this peer review and very harsh criticism and testing. IF the finding passes that, it has the right to be considered the previaling, accepted theory until such time as more evidence comes along to disprove it, then THAT evidence undergoes the same peer review and criticism and testing.
So far, evolution has stood up to all the testing, peer review and criticism thrown at it. Period.
I'm aware of this. All i'm saying is...though science is our only method of finding out what exactly is going on...it still has its limits. Those limits shouldn't be abused and we should not assume a theory is fact only because its the best thing we have.
That's the beauty of science. You get more evidence, you ask new questions, you keep going until all the pieces of the puzzle fit. And even then, very few puzzles are ever filled in completely. I suspect we agree more than we disagree.
Evolution doesn't toss anything aside. It can't, it's a process, not a sentient being. It doesn't even know you're here.
But I'll play along - what has 'evolution' tossed aside that was formerly generally accepted? I mean, aside from creationism, of course. Which doesn't prove your point, it proves mine.
You should also look up harbinger. I don't think you know what it means because you didn't use it correctly here.
Science always tosses old beliefs aside, and evolution is rife with an opposing view supplanting 'ye old general consensus'.
"Science" used to teach the smallest particle was an atom. Not taught any more as it was tossed aside.
"Medical science" not so long ago, masturbated females to rid them of 'hysteria'. No longer a part of the hippocratic oath but a great job if you can get it!
Nope, you (and all other evolutionists)completely avoid applying the NSTA religious dogma to evolutionism.
The 'lost' abilities of snakes is 100% imaginary, BUT is still included as 'science', and not discarded as the fable it is. One can 'wish' for evidence, but barring evidence it is merely wishful thinking that makes it into the mainstream science.
Take away all: probably, could have, likely, we think, we speculate, may have, we believe & the evolution of snakes has no story to tell.
harbinger = forerunner/foreshadow. It was used correctly.
"If Martin, a biochemist, and Russell, a geologist, are right, then traditional hypotheses about how the Earth's earliest forms of life evolved are due for a rewrite"
"large flightless birds such as the ostrich and emu do not share a common flightless ancestor as once believed" etc etc etc.
I disagree on the harbinger thing. You didn't mean 'Foreshadow' you meant 'indication.'
But these quotes: Key word: HOW life evolved. Not "WHETHER" it evolved.
Scientists will continue to study evolution, find more evidence, refine its ideas about how it works, and what the process may have looked like. And yes, they will often come to disagreements that will be settled by MORE evidence and MORE study.
Let them do their job, and stop making fun of things you don't understand.
Correct! Evolutionists will NEVER admit evolution is lunacy, as only their previously long held lunatic views are ever "discarded'. Other than that, evolution: 'it's a fine theory'
you have no evidence of the evolution of eyes, snakes, trees from aglae. Yet they are still taught as 'fact'.
"FACTS" in science are ever changing and old 'FACTS' are being discarded. Your belief system has to cahnge along with the 'facts' or you have to admit science was wrong over & over again. Then you would have to contemplate why you believe something that continually discards old & formerly accepted beliefs. I 'believe' this today, but tomorrow I may believe the exact opposite!
Again, that's the beauty of science. it takes in new evidence, and refines its ideas.
Religion, however, even in the face of mountains of evidence to the contrary, never changes its tune. That's some dogmatic sh*t right there.
By the way, how do YOU think snakes got here? If you don't believe the current scientific thinking on evolution, what is YOUR theory? And do you have any evidence for it?
Show me the 'beauty of science' that is irrefutable in evidence that eyes evolved from a patch of skin, or without a brain, or within a brain, or in a worm, or from one ancestor, or multiple times independently.
It is supposed to have taken only 2,000 steps and occurred as fast as 364,000 years, so where is the evidence?
So the 'beauty of science' is it is never right. Profound!
Okay, I can't take the tedium of this argument anymore. You refuse to divulge your earth-shattering theory of how snakes got here if they didn't evolve. I will continue to let science continue to gather its evidence and learn more about how life evolved.
We'll never agree. That's fine. Believe what you want. You're not my problem. I'm just glad you're not a science teacher.
Show me the incontrovertible evidence of snakes losing eyelids, legs, ears. Those are claims made by evolution. That is the subject matter of what is being discussed.
That you conveniently try to change the subject matter from evolution's snake oil lunacy, it's a sign of weakness and of futility for any evidence.
Dr Carl R. Woese "Woese overturned one of the major dogmas of biology. Until then, all life on Earth belonged to one of two primary lineages, the eukaryotes (animals, plants, fungi and certain unicellular organisms such as paramecia) and the prokaryotes (all remaining microscopic organisms). The archaea -- microorganisms that live in extreme environments without oxygen in conditions thought to be reminiscent of Earth's early environment -- changed that long-accepted view."
unless you're speaking of a little gnome who lives up in the mountains and wields the book of all scientific answers which disproves/proves all theories...your statement doesn't do much for this argument...
Sigh. I thought I was through with this stupidity.
You know bloody well what I meant by that statement. Just another example of your insistence on willingly misunderstanding what you read. You'd make a good preacher.
EXACTLY what facts of evolution, in this video, are we talking about? All I saw were statements detailing imaginations of evolutionists. All unsupported by empirical evidence (outside the authors mind), all missing the 'peer review', and all are figments of imagination gone snakey.
The lost abilities is fiction, the water vs. land ancestry is in hot dispute, so I'm somewhat puzzled by the 'facts' you refer to.
"So far, evolution has stood up to all the testing, peer review and criticism thrown at it."
Not quite accurate. Along evolutionism's wayside are innumerable theories that one were believed by science, and are now discarded. Imagination continues to play a vital role in alleged evolution of snakes.
Sorry, teddi. You're making less and less sense with every comment.
Scientists will continue to study the evolution of snakes and refine how the process happened as more evidence comes in. However, no serious zoologist, herpetologist, or biologist who has studied snakes will deny that they evolved.
However, if you want to believe that they once talked someone into eating an apple, you're free to do so. Just be prepared to be laughed at.
Science has not a clue as to the alleged evolution of snakes. That is why they have to use fables - losing ears, eyelids, legs and some even 'think' snakes lost their eyes/eyesight to accomodate burrowing, yet there are those equally fervent that insist snake ancestors were aquatic, thereby reducing all the 'burrowing' tales by zoolologists, herpetologists & biologists to 'imagination gone wild'.
Both fables - aquatic vs. terrestial - are 100% imagination.
So this makes you believe that snakes once talked?
Do yourself a favor. Read Darwin's Origin of Species, and Dawkins' "Climbing Mount Improbable." Then take a basic course in biology at your local community college, and try to understand what evolutionists say or don't say about how snakes got here.
Until you do that, please stop pestering me with your silly, fatuous assertions.
I'm not a biologist or zoologist, Teddi. I don't know whether snake ancestors are aquatic or terrestrial.
NEITHER DO YOU.
Design will never be a scientific answer. You'd have to PROVE there was a designer. And if they were designed and just plopped down by your sky fairy as snakes, explain vestigial legs, please?
why are they 'vestigial legs'? if their ancestry was aquatic, they would not have had legs, so MAYBE their legs are in the early stages of lenghtening? Whatever you believe in snake evolution, there is an equally unproved opposing view.
This is tedious. Let's at least get this on one thread. These multiple messages are annoying, as is your neurotic desire to get the last word.
So if, as you say here, the legs are in the early stages of lengthening, then you admit that evolution happens and that it's happening NOW?
We won't be around in a few million years time to find out - but it's clear that whether the legs are vestigial or emerging, that's evolution in action, baby.
Yep. But no respected scientist denies that it's going one way or the other. Though the direction may be up for debate.
We're also talking about geologic time. We'll never know in our lifetimes - we can only hope that the human race is still around by the time that answer is known.
"But no respected scientist denies that it's going one way or the other" is equivalent to saying 'it's entirely up to the imagination of each scientist as they haven't a clue'.
Just like (land ancestry) snakes 're-evolving' eyesight. 100% imagination.
If no respected scientist knows whether snake legs are growing or shortening (or staying the same), then why are either views being taught as 'science' when it is all 100%imagination?
WHo says the snake legs are not going to stay exactly the same size for the next 400 million years? Flies haven't changed much in 250 million years despite their speed of light reproductive system; algae hasn't changed much in 2 BILLION years (a disappointment to the scientists!)
To this day many lizards have a tendancy to lose their legs, there are many species of legless lizards.
The exact evolutionary process which caused snake ancestors to lose their legs is irrelevant to this discussion, the dispute is not IF snakes evolved from lizards it's HOW and WHY.
Snakes even have a vestigial lung, thats right, only one lung works, the other is still there but is tiny and useless, my pet python has clearly visible vestigial legs as well
you fail miserably
chobochotch 2 years ago
There are many scientists that believe snakes did not evolve from lizards, but from an undisclosed marine animal.
Some even think that snakes 'could' be growing legs, not losing them.
teddiaustin 2 years ago
That is not true, the aquatic origin is still around but the animal was still a lizard-like reptile, however recent discovery in argentina show a definate snake that still had rear legs but was a terestrial burrowing animal.
Animals do not just sprout legs out of nothing, the first legs came from fins, in the process of losing their legs it appears there were stages of loss and gain, modern snakes are not growing legs, please site one legit scientist that makes that claim
chobochotch 2 years ago
@teddiaustin growing back legs would only be bad in this case
patrickledford420 2 years ago
@teddiaustin no scientist thinks there growing legs that is NOT how legs evolved
patrickledford420 1 year ago
@chobochotch yeh i have a python to and i showed my uncle its "legs" and he spewed out the adam and eve serpent bullshit
patrickledford420 1 year ago
"I do not promote any specific origin"
Its funny how you want to belief that you are pointing out violations of the philosophy of science when you yourself have done it all along.
Science is about the aquisition and apllying of knowledge and therefore theories must have been constructed from the data. If you can make no positive proclamation (promote a specific origin) then you are devoid of evidence, removing accountability and not doing science at all.
ProcInc 2 years ago
"therefore theories must have been constructed from the data"
There is NO data for clear brille forming to protect from dirt particles, NO data for non-burrowing becoming burrowing becoming non-burrowing again to snakes, NO data for ancestors losing ears, NO data for losing legs to make burrowing easier.
100% pure fantasy. Believers of water/land ancestors of snakes pretend 'fiction' is science.
Snake origin theories are constructed from imagination.
Proclamation: snakes ONLY produce snakes
teddiaustin 2 years ago
"There is NO data for clear brille forming to protect from dirt particles"
Anyone who has studied the genes or the homologues to the brille and a fusion of the upper and lower eyelid as well as different varieties of brille among reptiles.
"NO data for losing legs to make burrowing easier."
If you ignore the fossils of legged snakes, vestiges, atavisms and gene sequence.
Its a shame you can't see what you don't want to and accuse the experts of using imagination.
ProcInc 2 years ago
"Experts" fill in black holes of logic rife missing empirical evidence, with imagination. Brille, losing ears, legs, burrowing then land dwelling again, all 100% fiction. Which is why there is not one claim of empirical evidence for this alleged 'protosnake'.
The links provided (Lenny Flank) hint at an alleged ancestor of unknown origin, but never provides evidence of existance. Takes this fictional being, invents a story to replace missing data based on a 'belief'
Hint: "proto" = imaginary
teddiaustin 2 years ago
"Hint: "proto" = imaginary"
It actually means 'before'
ProcInc 2 years ago
'proto' in evolutionism, is a desperate attempt to fill a missing evidence (black hole) with fictional animals, of which, no evidence has ever been found to support their existence. Evolutionisms' believers swallow 'protoanything' as incontestable fact, instead of realizing the concocted animal is completely conceptual and 100% fictional.
teddiaustin 2 years ago
@teddiaustin what u mean the literaly tons of transitional fossils between fish to pmphibian then reptile split into bird and mammals then thousands from first homo africanus to homo sapien look up donexodus2 aronra or cdk007
patrickledford420 2 years ago
"If you ignore the fossils of legged snakes, vestiges, atavisms and gene sequence"
IF there is so much evidence available, then please tell me WHY, Lenny Flank admits, "The "burrowing ancestors" theory has, however, come under some attack recently".
Even 'scientists' disagree with the 'burrowing' ancestor fictional account. And I humbly agree with the dissenters. Difficult to attack empirical evidence, easy to attack a fantasy.
You try to dismiss me as if I am the lone dissenter.
LMAO
teddiaustin 2 years ago
"IF there is so much evidence available please tell me WHY...The burrowing ancestors theory has come under some attack"
1. Because the evidence there is shows that snakes evolved from legged reptiles but does not show *where*, I already explained this.
2. Because all theories in every discipline come under fire.
3. Because the aquatic origins theory is becoming more tenable.
ProcInc 2 years ago
"NO data for non-burrowing becoming burrowing becoming non-burrowing again to snakes"
You are saying that no burrowing snakes exist and they are not the most primitive variety? You are saying that aboreal snakes have brille not because their ancestors needed it but for no reason at all? Really?
"snakes ONLY produce snakes"
This of course ignores the existence of legged snakes and cladistics.
It also suggests snakes appeared fully formed out of either nothing or non-life
ProcInc 2 years ago
"You are saying that no burrowing snakes exist and they are not the most primitive variety?"
Nope, I'm saying that there is no empirical evidence of any above ground snake losing legs to burrow, later deciding to live above land. The 'theory' is 100% fictional imagination.
IF sea dwelling ancestor to snakes is the correct version, the land to burrowing to land sgain is 100% fiction. IF the land dwelling, burrowing, land dwelling ancestry is correct, the sea dwelling ancestry is 100% fiction.
teddiaustin 2 years ago
"Nope, I'm saying that there is no empirical evidence of any above ground snake losing legs to burrow, later deciding to live above land."
This is untrue but I will give you the benefit of making this claim anyway.
As I pointed out earlier there is overwhelming and irrefutable evidence of snakes evolving fro legged lizards, the jury is out on why (aquatic or burrowing adaptation or perhaps both)
Uncertainty on one point does not destroy certainty on other points
ProcInc 2 years ago
unfortunately, 'irrefutable evidence' relies on imaginary conceptual animals.
Jury is out? Well, well, well, we agree on one thing. 'Uncertainty' is exactly that, no empirical evidence of fact to support the 'proto' imaginations.
IF aquatic origin of snakes is correct every single leg losing land/underground/land based theory is completely asinine.
My job? Show the massive holes in the theories that are believed regardless of missing evidence & inclusion of mythological animals as 'evidence'
teddiaustin 2 years ago
"relies on imaginary conceptual animals"
Najash, Haasiophis, pachyrachis and Eupodophis are not imaginary nor conceptuals. We have their fossils and they are transitional between legged squamates and snakes
Najash was a burrowing creature whereas haasiophis was found in marine deposits.
There are no proto imaginations. Why would you suggest this when you can see the fossils for yourself?
There are also leg-making genes in snakes further exposing their lizard ancestry
ProcInc 2 years ago
Being able to name resplendent depths of evidence for the evolution of snakes you would forgive me for being confused as to why you truly think that you can tout a fact as invalid when there are at least two tenable explanations for it.
That is why you fail and evolution, as always, comes out on top.
We have the evidence, we have the fossils, we win.
ProcInc 2 years ago
@teddiaustin like i said tons of fossils dna paleontology genetics homologies every prediction made by evolution made and confirmed never one contradicting peice of evidence donexodus2 aronra or cdk007 look it up and learn the facts u and me every human is an ape
patrickledford420 2 years ago
"People observed maggots emanating from meat, 'proving maggots are in meat. however they missed the flied laying eggs"
Exactly, so it took another observation to disprove one hypothesis and solidify the new one.
That's how science works, it never proves it can only disprove. And when observations are made they made be constructed into a working theory, That theory is tested by making discoveries and predictions and if they are successful they are published
like the evolution of snakes
ProcInc 2 years ago
Meat -> maggots shows accepted 'scientific' observations/conclusions can be ridiculous.
Bias and fantasy play a huge part in scientific observations. Witnesses to the same accident often have diverging views.
For 'science' it HAS to be observable, testable, repeatable and verifiable. Imagination is NEVER called 'science' except 'science fiction' (snake evolution) & should have a mandatory disclaimer warnings.
A movie critic opines about a specific movie, positive proclamations not required.
teddiaustin 2 years ago
"Meat -> maggots shows accepted 'scientific' observations/conclusions can be ridiculous"
Soo, because a pre-enlightenment belief was wrong...snake evolution must be wrong? seriously?
"Bias and fantasy play a huge part in scientific observations."
Actually quite the opposite. Early geologists scoured the Earth looking for evidence of a global flood but instead found evidence of uniformitarian principles and therefore changed their bias.
The scientific method filters bias
ProcInc 2 years ago
"A movie critic opines about a specific movie, positive proclamations not required."
1. Science and movies are entirely different disciplines. I can't believe I need to explain that
2. Movie critics can give legitimate criticisms while you are making arguments from personal incredulity
3. Critics of scientific theory *are* expected to have a well-constructed alternate theory that accounts for all data suppotive of the original PLUS other data. Movie critics merely need popular support
ProcInc 2 years ago
Lenny Flank: "Based on these similarities, some herpetologists have theorized that an ancient group of monitor-like lizards began to follow a burrowing way of life"
Scientific empirical evidence provided? NOPE! imagination? YES!
'Personal incredulity' is a weak argument attempting to dismiss profound lack of evidence.
"some herpetologists have theorized" isn't exactly irrefutable empirical evidence. LOL
Critic: A person who appraises the works of others, a person who finds fault (me!)
teddiaustin 2 years ago
"scientific emperical evidence provided?"
Yes. Simply look up the works of these herpetologists and you can see the emperical evidence they use instead of just the conclusion drawn from them after reading a pop science article.
You aren't a critic, you're a troll
ProcInc 2 years ago
A critics job is never completed.... I merely open up dialogue proving missing evidence and fictional beliefs are held steadfastly by the religious followers of evolution, and am called names.
LMAO
If one can't dispute the facts, call the messenger names. Evolution is easy to mock, the believers themselves offer the foundation of lunacy.
teddiaustin 2 years ago
The sources you actually give provide links (and in many cases describe themselves) how these features developed. It would have helped if you used a reputable source and not just a pop science article as well.
If there are two well supported hypotheses the intelligent thing is not to dicount them both.
Quantum theory and relativity are contradictory as are the various models of atomic structure.
Yet you single out evolutionary biology because it disagrees with your religious mythology
ProcInc 2 years ago
Links provided merely imagine how features developed. Science is NOT supposed to be works of fantasy & vivid imaginations.
Neither hypothesis on snake evolution is supported by science (testable, repeatable, observable). I humbly & correctly single out these evolutionary teachings as fables.
'Acceptability (of a scientific hypothesis) is judged in terms of the degree to which observations and experimentations can be reproduced. ' MS Encarta
Snake evolution is therefore, 100% fable.
teddiaustin 2 years ago
"Links provided merely imagine how features developed."
They also test this by analysing homolgues in structure and homeobox genes.
They can also see it live in developmental ontogeny when the snake's embyro gorws a full set of reptilian legs and then reabsorbs them for no reason.
Nature has even repeated this niche for us in the glass snake (ophisaurus) and slowworm which are not snakes but legless lizard.
(cont)
ProcInc 2 years ago
(cont)
Further evidence lays in the original evidence of evolution used by Darwin and, to a greater extent, Wallace. That is biogeography.
In every way that the evolutionary ancestry of snakes *can* be tested it has confirmed.
So experiments in genetics, palaeontology and embryology confirm that snakes had saurian ancestors.
Where's your evidence that they once talked and offered fruit? lol.
ProcInc 2 years ago
"In every way that the evolutionary ancestry of snakes *can* be tested it has confirmed"
That's actually a point for the 'other side'.
Science HAS to be observed, testable and repeatable. Snake evolution has no such validity and is imagination. Embryonic features does not "prove" snakes lost legs. Drawing conclusions where none can be: tested, repeated, or observed = imagination.
Water ancestry vs land ancestry: each believes other side is wrong, I agree with them, they are BOTH wrong.
teddiaustin 2 years ago
"Science HAS to be observed testable and repeatable"
And as I pointed out snake evolution is both testable and tested. The way that you move the goalposts and convolute experiments from your own ignorance rather than acknowledge those that know what they are doing when they study the fossils, genes, phenotypes and biogeography.
To sat they cannot be repeated tested or obseved is simply lying because you don't want to accept it did happen
ProcInc 2 years ago
"water ancestry vs Land ancestry"
The reason both hypotheses exist is not because each believe the other to be wrong but because the evidence supports both so far without a clinching fossil or genetic find to rule out one of the two possibility.
Both exist because they are so accurate (If you want to criticise that, critise quantum theory vs relativity as well. Same principle)
You seem determined to deny that the 'what' and 'how' are so verified by focussing on the 'where'
ProcInc 2 years ago
I do not promote any specific origin, only ridicule snake & plant evolution.
Attempting to change the topic to something not even being discussed, is a sign of weakness & failure.
Make 'legless' snakes grow legs, then alter the genes to 'lose' the legs.
SCIENCE: Observable, repeatable, verifiable, NOT hallucinations & imaginations.
Observations are not 'evidence'
People observed maggots emanating from meat, 'proving' maggots are in meat, however they 'missed' the flies laying eggs.
teddiaustin 2 years ago
"NOT hallucinations & imaginations."
You keep saying these words however clearly none of the evidence shown particularly specifically on the evolution of snakes is a hallucination or imagination.
For example you could hardly call the modern anal spurs in boas an imagination nor the more pronounced atavisms in other snakes of reduced hindlimbs.
You couldn't call the fossils of snakes with legs and toes as well as the predicted find of HOX genes supported by ontogeny imagination
ProcInc 2 years ago
This was a very poorly made video but I tolerated watching through the whole thing.
I don't exactly see what part of this you actually have a problem with.
Sure, you seem to be inclined to ridiculing it as much as possible with oversimplification etc and playing off the fact that this seems counterintuitive to your own impatient mindset.
However at no point do you address why none of this actually happened (and instead gave several links outlining how we know it did)
in short, fail
ProcInc 2 years ago
This doesn't make any sense.
If this is meant to be a satirical attack on the theory of evolution- then you've done a pretty bad job.
redspyglass 3 years ago
The exposition is not satirical. The quotes are from evolutionists, and yes I agree with you, it 'doesn't make any sense'.
Since we agree evolution of snakes as told by evolution, doesn't make any sense, then perhaps I did a much better job than you think!
teddiaustin 3 years ago
Well I think evolution (by and large) makes sense. Natural selection.
redspyglass 3 years ago
It is not everyday that a believer of evolution admits that there are some things evolution teaches that does not make sense, even to them.
Congrats is in order???
LMAO
Snakes, eyes, flight, algae to oak trees are but the 'tip of the iceburg' in evolution's lunacy.
teddiaustin 3 years ago
When i said "doesn't make any sense" - I was referring to the objective of the video, as opposed to evolution itself.
You mention the lunacy of evolution. What lunacy would this be? The modern evolutionary synthesis has an overwhelming amount of supporting evidence and there is no alternate theory (to my knowledge) which explains the observed changes in populations.
redspyglass 3 years ago
not a bad vid but could be better, i actually believe that snakes evolved from burrowing lizards, i'm doing a piece of work on it for college and i discovered some interesting info, for example the 'anal spurs' on most boas and pythons are made of bone right? well they have 1 each side of thier body, this could mean that they used to be legs, but through evolution are starting to become less prominate, meaning that snakes could have had legs, i mean we know they like to burrow anyway not bad vid
reitifoh 3 years ago
"i actually believe that snakes evolved from burrowing lizards"
You discount the alleged aquatic origin BUT believe the alleged terrestrial origin?
If aquatic is correct, YOU are 100% WRONG
"this could mean" only shows you are trying to convince YOURSELF of your 'belief'.
If there was 'evidence' you coulda/woulda actually provide it.
re: anal spurs - are they receding, enlarging or staying the same?
(hint: No one actually KNOWS)
That's why you HAVE to state 'i actually believe...'
driver1100 3 years ago
i'm not saying i discount the aqauatic version i'm just saying that the land based version is just as viable, the aqactic version is most likely correct cause at some stage the snake must have evolved from sea creatures (all animals migrating to sea theory) i'm just saying that snakes are likely to have been burrowing lizards cause of their cousins now days (if you look on the internet for 'snake eyed skinks' you will see an animal very similar to a snake, but with legs) and they are canivorous
reitifoh 3 years ago
"i'm just saying that snakes are likely to have been burrowing lizards" what empiricial EVIDENCE do you have to support your belief that snakes ancestors were lizards?
That my watch workings looks kinda like Big Ben's workings makes no evolutionary inference.
Only 100% imagination can draw any link between skinks and any missing alleged ancestorial pre-snake 'lizard' of an unknown entity.
One cannot use 'reason' as a substitute for evidence.
teddiaustin 3 years ago
-"... EVIDENCE do you have to support your belief that snakes ancestors were lizards?"-
Ever heard of embryonic features?
fetrug 3 years ago
Snakes that LOOK similar in an embryonic state to something else, doesn't mean they were ever lizards.
Science is observable, testable, repeatable, verifiable. Your belief is 100% opinion. Opinion is not 'science'.
In the above video, you will see that the 'other' (incompatible) theory (100% unsupported in evidence as well) is that snakes ancestors were aquatic, not land lizards.
I merely show contrary opinions, theories & beliefs are NOT a substitiute for ZERO scientific 'evidence'.
teddiaustin 3 years ago
-"Snakes that LOOK similar in an embryonic state to something else, doesn't mean they were ever lizards."-
I said -"legs"-, that means nothing to you?
fetrug 3 years ago
If the aquatic ancestry theory is correct, your 'leg' appearance in an embryonic state is completely illusionary and a mindlessly irrelevant tangent. That is where I am on BOTH opposing views of snake evolution - Imagination required.
Science has no clue as to the alleged evolution of snakes. Everything is imaginary and fantasy, but 'believed' by a sincere but misguided foundation of snake mythologies (clear brille from dirt, legs growing or receding, ears, venom due to eyes of primates etc.)
teddiaustin 3 years ago
You're denying the simple fact that the embryonic leg is present, no matter what you say, it's an observable trait, unlike some random person walking on water. Snakes are not the only animals that have embryonic features that reveal their past you know.
fetrug 3 years ago
Snakes 'legs' may be increasing in size or decreasing is size or may have NEVER changed from what exists NOW.
"the ongoing debate about whether snakes evolved from marine or terrestrial ancestors"
Any belief of snake ancestry is debated by an incompatible view. I (humbly) point out the incoherent debate of imagination vs imagination.
"thought that snakes evolved from (1) an aquatic ancestor, (2) a burrowing ancestor , or (3) a secretive ancestor
or how about # 4, none of the above!
teddiaustin 3 years ago
unfortunatly as you said it can not be proven, and i dought it ever will, because snakes skeletons are so fragile that we may never get a 100% garrenteed fossil proving either way, so 'i believe' that it will be a long time (if ever) to prove either way, at the moment everything (even what scientists say) is just speculation and guess work.
but ty for commenting lol
reitifoh 3 years ago
"because snakes skeletons are so fragile"
Algal evidence has survived over 1.5 BILLION years so your argument of fragility is your own reasoned way to deal with no evidence.
btw, algal evidence (1.5 BILLION years worth) PROVED algae didn't evolve.
Science is observable, repeatable & verifiable.
Snake evolutionary tales (aquatic and terrestrial) are NOT science and should not be confused with 'science'.
Evolution substituting speculation & guesswork for evidence is 100% correct!
teddiaustin 3 years ago
calm down, its a belief, everyone is entilted to different beliefs, and mine is that snakes evolved from lizards, it seems impossible that such an effective predator hasn't evolved to better itself, if you beleive otherwise then thats your opion and i won't argue with it, but i will make one suggestion, a good aguement sees all points of veiw so in the futre consider others veiw and include them in your aguement don't discount everything you disagree with thats it from me
reitifoh 3 years ago
Yup, you are entitled to your own set of values and beliefs and opinions, BUT don't (or let any one else) call them 'science'.
I do not consider 'views', 'opinions', imaginations' as science.
Science is observable, repeatable & verifiable and snake evolution doesn't fit in as 'science'. Maybe 'faith' but not 'science'.
teddiaustin 3 years ago
ok i've just got to say this last thing, isn't science PART opinion, i mean you can't rly say oh yes the earth was created exactly 10 billion years ago and have 100% proof of it, u can have fossils that prove there was SOMETHING around 10 billion years ago that fossil could have lived a billion years then died, science is not exact and that is what u must consider, at some degree there will be opinions and fact mixed together, it is unavoidable so opinions and science are interlinked.
reitifoh 3 years ago
"Science relies on observable, testable evidence"
"Science can deal only with what is verifiable, observable, testable"
"Science relies on observable evidence that is testable & verifiable"
"If something cannot be physically observed/verified &/or subjected to rigorous scientific methods, then it is cannot be considered to be in the realm of science"
Opinions are NOT science.
Mixing facts w/ opinion is evidence of the religious aspects of evolution.
teddiaustin 3 years ago
Opinion: "A belief or judgement that is strongly held, but without actual proof of its truth"
"a view, judgment, or appraisal formed in one person's mind about a particular matter"
A belief(s) one forms in their own mind is NOT part of 'science', but 'faith'.
It is not 'unavoidable' to mix opinions into science - it is done on PURPOSE.
As there is no evidence for the 'belief' they desire to hold, they must inject their own imaginary creatures (eg. protavian) & call it 'science'.
teddiaustin 3 years ago
How about this LUNACY - an arms race in eyes! 'cuz o' 'snakes'
"An evolutionary arms race between early snakes and mammals triggered the development of improved vision and large brains in primates, a radical new theory SUGGESTS.
The IDEA, PROPOSED by Lynne Isbell, an anthropologist at the U of C, Davis, SUGGESTS that snakes and primates share a long and intimate history, one that forced both groups to evolve new strategies as each attempted to gain the upper hand"
Any evidence?
Nope!
teddiaustin 3 years ago
Cleary you have no idea how evolution actually works. Your education has failed you. Sorry.
sojo1966 3 years ago
hmmmm..... I quote experts in evolution and it is I that has no idea how evolution works?
That is pretty funny! Ridiculously funny (or just plain ridiculous)
I find it rather odd that statements made by evolutionists (apparently the 'experts'), are not accepted by the useful idiots that are brainwashed so thoroughly, they can reject evolution's very own disclaimers, as if the disclaimers were never stated.
I merely highlight the disclaimers (with sources!) for all useful idiots to digest
teddiaustin 3 years ago
I checked your sources. You dumbed the process down so much it bore little resemblance to the actual process at all. Either that, or you just made it all up because you couldn't be bothered to really read and understand what was being said. Laughable, really.
sojo1966 3 years ago
The 'quotes' I use in the video, are actual quotes. If you are saying that the writers 'quoted' are dumbing down evolution, tell them, I ALREADY know evolution is dumb.
teddiaustin 3 years ago
Oh, sure, they're actual quotes, but not from evolution 'experts.' They're not even snake 'experts.'
You googled 'snakes' and found some kids book report, and then used that to make your silly and arrogant video. Get an education and stop wasting your time setting up straw men.
Andraste77 3 years ago
So Lenny Flank is merely a kid who wrote a book report?
LMAO
You're dismissing one of America's noted experts in all things reptilian! Please write Lenny Flank and tell him he is a kid.
It is a bit odd (but not unforseen) that an evolutionist like you HAS TO dimiss the specific incoherent ramblings of your fellow believers. They make you (and evolution) look silly, so you have o go with plan B: DENY, DENY, DENY.
Al the other sources (snakes losing things)are 'kids'???
LMAO
teddiaustin 3 years ago
I was talking about Mark Levinson - that piece from the Lankanews site.
But no matter. You looked at some information about snake evolution, decided it's more realistic to believe in creationism, then made a very stupid video in which you showed yourself to be an anti-science ignoramus, with a chip on his shoulder because you clearly "DON'T GET IT."
What are you, 12?
Andraste77 3 years ago
So the video makes snake evolution look stupid because the beleivers in snake evolution make stupid comments (that I merely quote)? No?!?!?!?!
I do 'get it'. Snake evolution is 100% fable and the shown views & quotes from evolutionists PROVE it.
Funny no one dares deny the 'losing ears, eyelids, legs' as lunacy. One HAS to protect evolution at ALL costs, even if it means supporting the ridiculous claims of evolutionists.
teddiaustin 3 years ago
The video looks stupid because it is an oversimplified view of how evolution happens. You dumbed it down for your own purposes because you can't be bothered to understand what evolution does or the concept of geologic time.
Take a course. If you end up STILL not believing in evolution after being taught by a real expert, then at least your videos will be better for the new information.
Andraste77 3 years ago
It does not matter how one tries to complicate a silly fable, it is still a silly fable.
I find it odd that you don't agree with the statements int he video, only hat it oversimplifies snake evolution. That must mean I got it right and accurate in this abridged version!
teddiaustin 3 years ago
Sillier than a talking snake that convinced someone to eat an apple?
Andraste77 3 years ago
I am still waiting for you to point out any 'facts of evolution' in the snake evolution video. I compiled the video and I hate to tell you, there were no 'facts' in the entire video. The video merely highlights the imaginary tales as told by evolutionists themselves.
teddiaustin 3 years ago
You deleted my last comment. How fitting.
Lame-ass.
Andraste77 3 years ago
I haven't been on youtube since Fri Dec 5th. If a post went missing, it was not I. Try reposting it.
teddiaustin 3 years ago
Must have been because it was a link. Let's try again.
Good video about the process of evolution by natural selection.
/watch?v=R_RXX7pntr8
This'll be it for me. All the answers to your questions are there - I can't add to it and the character limit in these comment boxes drives me nuts.
Bye, Teddi. Have a nice day.
Andraste77 3 years ago
I just looked closer at that lankanews site, too. The history of snakes bit is on Mark Levinson's homepage, whoever he is...but he is NOT an evolution expert.
My dear, deluded boy. That's the personal site of some nerdy guy with Victoria's Secret fashion show on his home page as well as a page where he does what appears to be a high school book report on the evolution of the snake.
You are HILARIOUS!!!
sojo1966 3 years ago
teach me oh wise one. i want to be a sojo masta like yourself!!
Squish888 3 years ago
Three rules, Grasshopper:
Read books by competent, respected scientists.
Check sources (see above).
Don't oversimplify and then present your erroneous findings in a way that will cause people to think you're not very wise, but very arrogant.
Take care - happy holidays.
sojo1966 3 years ago
I'm majoring in psychology and critical thinking. Just a few problems with your rules. Because there are multiple unproven theories out there i'm sure the only competent respected scientists there are for you are the ones that follow your line of beliefs. And of course anyone that presents a finding that doesn't agree with your scientific belief will come off as unwise and arrogant because thats your perception of them. Perception is everything. Take care - Merry Christmas :).
Squish888 3 years ago
Anyone who presents a scientific finding must undergo peer review. All scientific theories undergo this peer review and very harsh criticism and testing. IF the finding passes that, it has the right to be considered the previaling, accepted theory until such time as more evidence comes along to disprove it, then THAT evidence undergoes the same peer review and criticism and testing.
So far, evolution has stood up to all the testing, peer review and criticism thrown at it. Period.
Cheers.
Andraste77 3 years ago
and you think the peer review magically turns a theory into proven fact?
Squish888 3 years ago
Until something better comes along with better evidence, a generally accepted theory is the best you can get in science. Look it up.
Andraste77 3 years ago
I'm aware of this. All i'm saying is...though science is our only method of finding out what exactly is going on...it still has its limits. Those limits shouldn't be abused and we should not assume a theory is fact only because its the best thing we have.
Squish888 3 years ago
That's the beauty of science. You get more evidence, you ask new questions, you keep going until all the pieces of the puzzle fit. And even then, very few puzzles are ever filled in completely. I suspect we agree more than we disagree.
Andraste77 3 years ago
Q. Has evolution ever tossed aside formerly generally accepted, peer-reviewed evidence?
A. Yes, innumerable times.
Peer-review is no harbinger of what is true.
teddiaustin 3 years ago
Evolution doesn't toss anything aside. It can't, it's a process, not a sentient being. It doesn't even know you're here.
But I'll play along - what has 'evolution' tossed aside that was formerly generally accepted? I mean, aside from creationism, of course. Which doesn't prove your point, it proves mine.
You should also look up harbinger. I don't think you know what it means because you didn't use it correctly here.
Andraste77 3 years ago
Science always tosses old beliefs aside, and evolution is rife with an opposing view supplanting 'ye old general consensus'.
"Science" used to teach the smallest particle was an atom. Not taught any more as it was tossed aside.
"Medical science" not so long ago, masturbated females to rid them of 'hysteria'. No longer a part of the hippocratic oath but a great job if you can get it!
Great job if you can get it.....
teddiaustin 3 years ago
So you're saying because science uses new evidence to refine its theories and ask new questions that the snake didn't evolve?
Okay, you believe that. I'll wait for the evidence on that - but right now, the evidence all points to evolution.
Andraste77 3 years ago
Nope. Evolution tosses beliefs (former general consensus') aside.
"New theories emerge, and other theories are modified or discarded"
National Science Teachers Association
(discarded = tossed aside)
btw "Explanations that are not consistent with empirical evidence or cannot be tested empirically are not a part of science" NSTA
The snake 'losing eyelids, ears, legs' CANNOT be tested empirically NOR by ANY evidence, & are NOT a part of science?
A 'fable'? NO!!!!
Say it ain't SO!!!
teddiaustin 3 years ago
"Explanations that are not consistent with empirical evidence or cannot be tested empirically are not a part of science" NSTA
Right. That's why creationism isn't part of science.
You're only tangling yourself up in your own arguments.
Andraste77 3 years ago
Nope, you (and all other evolutionists)completely avoid applying the NSTA religious dogma to evolutionism.
The 'lost' abilities of snakes is 100% imaginary, BUT is still included as 'science', and not discarded as the fable it is. One can 'wish' for evidence, but barring evidence it is merely wishful thinking that makes it into the mainstream science.
Take away all: probably, could have, likely, we think, we speculate, may have, we believe & the evolution of snakes has no story to tell.
teddiaustin 3 years ago
And a heck of a lot of claims/beliefs from evolutionists (snakes losing things like legs and eyelids, or algae into oak trees) are not 'science'.
No empirical evidence, and the (algae to redwood tree, snbakes losing a limb or 4) fables cannot be tested.
teddiaustin 3 years ago
harbinger = forerunner/foreshadow. It was used correctly.
"If Martin, a biochemist, and Russell, a geologist, are right, then traditional hypotheses about how the Earth's earliest forms of life evolved are due for a rewrite"
"large flightless birds such as the ostrich and emu do not share a common flightless ancestor as once believed" etc etc etc.
teddiaustin 3 years ago
I disagree on the harbinger thing. You didn't mean 'Foreshadow' you meant 'indication.'
But these quotes: Key word: HOW life evolved. Not "WHETHER" it evolved.
Scientists will continue to study evolution, find more evidence, refine its ideas about how it works, and what the process may have looked like. And yes, they will often come to disagreements that will be settled by MORE evidence and MORE study.
Let them do their job, and stop making fun of things you don't understand.
Andraste77 3 years ago
Correct! Evolutionists will NEVER admit evolution is lunacy, as only their previously long held lunatic views are ever "discarded'. Other than that, evolution: 'it's a fine theory'
teddiaustin 3 years ago
Evolution is fact. Evolutionists will never say it's lunacy because all the evidence we have right now POINTS TO EVOLUTION AS FACT.
If evolution is a theory, then god is still only a hypothesis, and according to Victor STenger, a failed one, at that.
But you believe what you want to believe. I'll continue to live in the real world.
Read those two books I recommended. It'll all be made clear.
Andraste77 3 years ago
you have no evidence of the evolution of eyes, snakes, trees from aglae. Yet they are still taught as 'fact'.
"FACTS" in science are ever changing and old 'FACTS' are being discarded. Your belief system has to cahnge along with the 'facts' or you have to admit science was wrong over & over again. Then you would have to contemplate why you believe something that continually discards old & formerly accepted beliefs. I 'believe' this today, but tomorrow I may believe the exact opposite!
Amazing!
teddiaustin 3 years ago
Again, that's the beauty of science. it takes in new evidence, and refines its ideas.
Religion, however, even in the face of mountains of evidence to the contrary, never changes its tune. That's some dogmatic sh*t right there.
By the way, how do YOU think snakes got here? If you don't believe the current scientific thinking on evolution, what is YOUR theory? And do you have any evidence for it?
Andraste77 3 years ago
If science always refines it's ideas (actually that's an oversimplification - correct term s/b 'discarding the old imaginations')
How do you know what is accepted today won't be completely rejected tomorrow?
You can actualy believe that your ancestors were worms, but I don't have agree.
I will keep highlighting the 'lost leg' lunacies that are taught as if they were 'fact'
teddiaustin 3 years ago
Show me the 'beauty of science' that is irrefutable in evidence that eyes evolved from a patch of skin, or without a brain, or within a brain, or in a worm, or from one ancestor, or multiple times independently.
It is supposed to have taken only 2,000 steps and occurred as fast as 364,000 years, so where is the evidence?
So the 'beauty of science' is it is never right. Profound!
teddiaustin 3 years ago
Okay, I can't take the tedium of this argument anymore. You refuse to divulge your earth-shattering theory of how snakes got here if they didn't evolve. I will continue to let science continue to gather its evidence and learn more about how life evolved.
We'll never agree. That's fine. Believe what you want. You're not my problem. I'm just glad you're not a science teacher.
Andraste77 3 years ago
Show me the incontrovertible evidence of snakes losing eyelids, legs, ears. Those are claims made by evolution. That is the subject matter of what is being discussed.
That you conveniently try to change the subject matter from evolution's snake oil lunacy, it's a sign of weakness and of futility for any evidence.
teddiaustin 3 years ago
Dr Carl R. Woese "Woese overturned one of the major dogmas of biology. Until then, all life on Earth belonged to one of two primary lineages, the eukaryotes (animals, plants, fungi and certain unicellular organisms such as paramecia) and the prokaryotes (all remaining microscopic organisms). The archaea -- microorganisms that live in extreme environments without oxygen in conditions thought to be reminiscent of Earth's early environment -- changed that long-accepted view."
We clear now? sheesh!
teddiaustin 3 years ago
YES! Scientific consensus changes as more evidence comes in. NO SHIT.
That's what I've been saying all along.
Why don't you contact Carl Woese directly and ask how snakes evolved?
Andraste77 3 years ago
unless you're speaking of a little gnome who lives up in the mountains and wields the book of all scientific answers which disproves/proves all theories...your statement doesn't do much for this argument...
Squish888 3 years ago
And this statement makes no sense whatsoever.
Go away and let the grown ups talk.
sojo1966 3 years ago
So evolution's tales of snake evolution, 'makes no sense whatsoever'?
You would not find me in disagreement
teddiaustin 3 years ago
Sigh. I thought I was through with this stupidity.
You know bloody well what I meant by that statement. Just another example of your insistence on willingly misunderstanding what you read. You'd make a good preacher.
sojo1966 3 years ago
Okay, I got it wrong. You think the unproven tales of snake evolution (losing ears, eyelids, legs) makes sense!
Have it your way.
teddiaustin 3 years ago
I will, thanks.
Andraste77 3 years ago
So you said the statements in the video make no sense, but in disagreeing with yourself, the statements in the video do make sense.
I think I got it now... you prefer to hold two opposing views at the same time.
btw, it's called 'cognitive dissonance'
teddiaustin 3 years ago
No, your oversimplification and treatment of the facts of evolution make the video a smelly, nonsensical pile of creationist propaganda.
Andraste77 3 years ago
"treatment of the facts of evolution"
EXACTLY what facts of evolution, in this video, are we talking about? All I saw were statements detailing imaginations of evolutionists. All unsupported by empirical evidence (outside the authors mind), all missing the 'peer review', and all are figments of imagination gone snakey.
The lost abilities is fiction, the water vs. land ancestry is in hot dispute, so I'm somewhat puzzled by the 'facts' you refer to.
Do tell!
teddiaustin 3 years ago
"So far, evolution has stood up to all the testing, peer review and criticism thrown at it."
Not quite accurate. Along evolutionism's wayside are innumerable theories that one were believed by science, and are now discarded. Imagination continues to play a vital role in alleged evolution of snakes.
teddiaustin 3 years ago
Sorry, teddi. You're making less and less sense with every comment.
Scientists will continue to study the evolution of snakes and refine how the process happened as more evidence comes in. However, no serious zoologist, herpetologist, or biologist who has studied snakes will deny that they evolved.
However, if you want to believe that they once talked someone into eating an apple, you're free to do so. Just be prepared to be laughed at.
Andraste77 3 years ago
Science has not a clue as to the alleged evolution of snakes. That is why they have to use fables - losing ears, eyelids, legs and some even 'think' snakes lost their eyes/eyesight to accomodate burrowing, yet there are those equally fervent that insist snake ancestors were aquatic, thereby reducing all the 'burrowing' tales by zoolologists, herpetologists & biologists to 'imagination gone wild'.
Both fables - aquatic vs. terrestial - are 100% imagination.
teddiaustin 3 years ago
So this makes you believe that snakes once talked?
Do yourself a favor. Read Darwin's Origin of Species, and Dawkins' "Climbing Mount Improbable." Then take a basic course in biology at your local community college, and try to understand what evolutionists say or don't say about how snakes got here.
Until you do that, please stop pestering me with your silly, fatuous assertions.
Andraste77 3 years ago
"try to understand what evolutionists say or don't say about how snakes got here"
well you tell me which view is 100% correct, okey dokey?
Q: Snake ancestry - aquatic or terrestial? Whatever you choose as 'fact' I'll show it is considered fiction. Go ahead, make a choice...
Waiting with bated breath.....
I almost forgot. Snake evolution happened, but science hasn't a clue. It was not 'design' is the only consensus - uh scientifically speaking.....
teddiaustin 3 years ago
I'm not a biologist or zoologist, Teddi. I don't know whether snake ancestors are aquatic or terrestrial.
NEITHER DO YOU.
Design will never be a scientific answer. You'd have to PROVE there was a designer. And if they were designed and just plopped down by your sky fairy as snakes, explain vestigial legs, please?
Andraste77 3 years ago
why are they 'vestigial legs'? if their ancestry was aquatic, they would not have had legs, so MAYBE their legs are in the early stages of lenghtening? Whatever you believe in snake evolution, there is an equally unproved opposing view.
teddiaustin 3 years ago
This is tedious. Let's at least get this on one thread. These multiple messages are annoying, as is your neurotic desire to get the last word.
So if, as you say here, the legs are in the early stages of lengthening, then you admit that evolution happens and that it's happening NOW?
We won't be around in a few million years time to find out - but it's clear that whether the legs are vestigial or emerging, that's evolution in action, baby.
Andraste77 3 years ago
Thee is not evidence that snake legs are shortening or lenghtening. Polar opposite views both held as 'fact' in various circles.
teddiaustin 3 years ago
Yep. But no respected scientist denies that it's going one way or the other. Though the direction may be up for debate.
We're also talking about geologic time. We'll never know in our lifetimes - we can only hope that the human race is still around by the time that answer is known.
Andraste77 3 years ago
"But no respected scientist denies that it's going one way or the other" is equivalent to saying 'it's entirely up to the imagination of each scientist as they haven't a clue'.
Just like (land ancestry) snakes 're-evolving' eyesight. 100% imagination.
teddiaustin 3 years ago
If no respected scientist knows whether snake legs are growing or shortening (or staying the same), then why are either views being taught as 'science' when it is all 100%imagination?
teddiaustin 3 years ago
WHo says the snake legs are not going to stay exactly the same size for the next 400 million years? Flies haven't changed much in 250 million years despite their speed of light reproductive system; algae hasn't changed much in 2 BILLION years (a disappointment to the scientists!)
teddiaustin 3 years ago
I cannot prove there was a designer, and you cannot prove there was no design. Stale mate.
So get back to the subject of evolutionism's fables describing snakes losing ears, eyelids, legs and maybe even their eyesight!
No evidence exists, reducing the claims of evolutionists as mere pandering imaginations.
teddiaustin 3 years ago
sucked balls
CoreBor 3 years ago
oh, yes, one of evolution's brightest! LOL
teddiaustin 3 years ago
glad you liked it!
teddiaustin 3 years ago
Are you sure you are allowed to use words that evolution uses in describing evolution, to make evolution look silly!?!
I KNOW they said it, but do they know how silly they look?
Great video, keep 'em coming!
driver1100 3 years ago