OK so you're sayign that a fossil that contradicts your hypothesis somehow supports it. What sort of person would makes such a claim. The major arguments made against your idea are supported by this fossil.
quote:
1. Snakes originated on land, not in the sea -- no small factor.
A very small factor. There was a hypothesis that snakes lost their legs in the water, but it wasn't so commonly known that I had even heard of it. Regardless, snakes would still have descended from land-living organisms (their common ancestor with lizards, for instance).
quote:
2. Early snakes had legs as per Buzsaw/Bible hypothesis and contrary to conventional science erroneous theory.
You mean in agreement with mainstream scientific theory. The early aquatic snakes that had been identified also had legs. But they didn't have hips.
You go on to state more falsehoods
quote:
1. The fossil lends more support to the Buzsaw/Bible hypothetic view that snakes originally had legs and originated on land then it does that snakes evolved. This incredible discovery establishes credence to two Biblical claims heretofore considered by conventional science as absolute unscientific absurdity, i.e that early snakes had legs and originated on land.
This contains two seriosu flasehoods. Firstly neither view was considered absurd by mainstream science. The worse falsehood is the deliberate misrepresentation of your own hypothesis. Your hypothesis states that that God transformed dinosaurs into snakes by a ddivine curse, explaining the extinction. Thus according to the so-called Buzsaw/Bible hypothesis there should be no transitional fossils of snakes. According to evolutionary theory there should be - and this is one of them. It further supports the evolutionary view in that it is not a snake-dinosaur intermediate and it appears tens of millions of years too early for your hypothesis. Thus it supports the mainstream scientific view - again - over the falsified "Buzsaw/Bible" hypothesis.
quote:
2. The fossil diminishes the view that snakes evolved in that natural selection should add legs rather than subtract them for the survival and mobility of the species.
Since no knowledgable person holds such a view it is hardly relevant that it is diminished.
quote:
The only thing it really confirms is that snakes didn't evolve from sea creatures and they had legs.
That isn't true.
It confirms that snkaes evolved (since it is an intermediate form)
(But I guess you'd rather not mention that)
It confirms that snakes ppeared long before your hypothesis claims
(And you certainly don't want to mention that)
It confirms that snakes are not immediately descended from dinosaurs
(And you don't want that mentioned either)
quote:
The Buzsaw/Bible hypothesis also says that legless snakes preceeded the extinction of dinos, but of course, within a much later timespan.
Does it ? Making an ad hoc addition which can't be justified on the supposed basis of the theory hardly makes it any stronger. Especailly if there were snakes at the supposed time of the Eden story the serpent should be one of them (because a serpent IS a snake). So really you are throwing out any Biblical support here, too.
{ABE}
Even worse as soon as you say this you admit that there are toehr snakes, whose origins are not addressed in your hypothesis. ANn since this fossil is one of THOSE snakes - you escape falsification of your hypothesis only at thw cost of rejecting all your claims that this fossil could support your views. You've just set yourself up in a no-win situation. Some of your claims must be false.
{end edit}
quote:
The Buzsaw/Bible hypothesis alleges that due to the far different atmospheric conditions and chemical makeup due to it, et al dating methods could have an erroneous reading.
So the "Buzsaw/Bible" hypothesis is wrong again. There aren't any plausible "atmospheric conditions and chemical makeup" that could affect dating enough to help you. (Worse for you, unless you are now moving to a full-fledged YEC view, which also causes major problems for you, you are still left with the fact that snakes appear far too early to have any link to the dinosaur extinction. So you are adding a problematic claim to your hypothesis when it doesn't even help you).
This message has been edited by PaulK, 05-11-2006 04:43 AM
™ Version 4.2
