Scientists get a better picture of how reptles lost their limbs...

Fort Fun Indiana

Diamond Member
Mar 10, 2017
108,268
98,390
3,645
...and became snakes.


By this time, the hind limbs were also becoming all but useless in these species. Models that used that energy elsewhere or not at all came to dominate (leading to reduction in the hind limbs as well).

Not surprisingly, this fossil find was predicted by evolutionary biologists.
 
scientists got a better pitcher how they lost they limbs?? how is that?? Did they chew them off?? Did they FALL off. Bud. Do you know HOW OLD THIS STORY IS??? LOLOOLOLOL
GLOBAL WARMING!! LOLOLOL that was good.

When things get slow, the science world trots out old info and passes it off as new....and so many fall for it.
 
Last edited:
Can there be anything as silly to believe than the notion that snakes once had legs??

 
well if our fellow scientists here want to say that snakes had legs wouldn't that add some credence to God's curse of the snake? that it would crawl on its belly for all eternity?

can they have it both ways? You know they can. LOL
 
article sure doesn't give you any idea as to how the reptles lost their legs though. More Sci-fi bullshit passed off as science. It is HISTORICAL or Origins science. There need be no evidence for that.

From the article:
It did have hind legs, feet and four toes, however, which is why the researchers believe it represents a transitional creature.


and from the article:

They also note that the ancient creature was not an ancestor of modern snakes, but it might help scientists to learn more about how they lost their limbs.

see what i mean. i
 
Last edited:
...and became snakes.


By this time, the hind limbs were also becoming all but useless in these species. Models that used that energy elsewhere or not at all came to dominate (leading to reduction in the hind limbs as well).

Not surprisingly, this fossil find was predicted by evolutionary biologists.
There have been people born with extra limbs. This proves nothing at all but some deformed entity.
 
There have been people born with extra limbs. This proves nothing at all but some deformed entity.
No, extremely unlikely, given both the low odds of an individual becoming a fossil and the low survivability of deformed creatures.

Believe it or not, paleontologists thought of that before you did .;)
 
No, extremely unlikely, given both the low odds of an individual becoming a fossil and the low survivability of deformed creatures.

Believe it or not, paleontologists thought of that before you did .;)
Evolution is still just man making a monkey of himself. ;)
 
Always amusing to watch Darwinists grasp at straws.

If that fossil is not an ancestor of modern snakes, what's the point?
Always funny to see a religious nutter ask such a childish, ignorant question. You shouldn't even be commenting on this topic, from a stance of such abject ignorance.

Yet you seem to spend so much time on this topic. It's amazing that you could do so and remain so abjectly ignorant. Quite a feat.
 
Here is a general tip for the resident madrassah and Facebook educated goobers:

When scientists get excited about something and say it reveals knowledge -- but you are sitting there, wallowing in ignorance, scratching your head, wondering aloud what is so important about it. --

....it might be because you have no idea what you are talking about and are utterly ignorant.

That should be the very next thought that crosses your minds.

"Hmm, maybe the people who have dedicated their lives to studying this topic know more than a Sunday school educated buffoon."

Seriously, try it.
 
Always amusing to watch Darwinists grasp at straws.

If that fossil is not an ancestor of modern snakes, what's the point?
It's always amusing to watch the Flat Earthers clutch their prayer beads.

If the fossil doesn't represent something that strolled off the Ark, where did it come from?
 

Forum List

Back
Top