Proof of the Biblical GOE story.

you can't be serious, can you? We noticed a while back that snakes had vestigial limbs where legs would have been. We know that they at one point had legs because of the vestigial limbs. by this i take it you mean that snakes would have evolved legs in order to better survive? You do know that evolution's survival is reproductive fitness. IOW, if you survive you have more offspring, thus your beneficial traits are passed on. Why would legs be necessary for survival on land? Worms do just fine, and they have no legs.I would say the buzsaw/bible hypothesis is nothing more than another, erroneous, attempt by fundies and creos to try and disprove evolution without knowing what they are talking about.

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

Kuresu nicely covered this, but I think it needs to be stressed. Conventional science has been pretty solid on the 'snakes used to have legs' concept for some time now. Indeed, the first amphibians were all tetrapods as far as I am aware, which includes snake ancestors.The only debate about snake legs was where they lost their legs. On the one hand it could be that snakes lost their legs whilst on land, or it could be whilst in sea. There was not enough evidence either way to draw a solid conclusion (though the 'land' camp was generally more populous I believe), until this recent find which supports the snakes-lost-legs-terrestrially camp. Preceding evidence for this terrestrial leg loss can be found here. This article talks about the sea vs land debate too, and how this new fossil has been perceived in light of it.

prove that they're reptilian. more to the point, prove that birds aren't. keep in mind, most dinosaurs were warm-blooded. blah blah blah.
whatever. at least you're promoting evolution of sorts. but seriously. stop bringing my bible into your off-nut theory.This message has been edited by brennakimi, 05-11-2006 08:44 AM

Buzsaw's hypothesis is that the serpent in Genesis was a dinosaur and that God turned all dinosaurs into snakes, explaining their extinction. Buzsaw has carefully avoided mentioning this fact.The new fossil does not represent a move towards this view, as it is a limbed snake and it appears around 25 million years before the dinosaurs died out. Perhaps these facts are the reaon that Buzsaw has avoided talking about the real nature of his hypothesis.The mainstream scientific view is that snakes are not closely related to dinosaurs and evolved long before the dinosaurs were extinct.The new fossil does support this view.To avoid admitting that the fossil disproves Buzsaw's hypothesis Buzsaw has suddenly introduced the idea that there were other snakes (because Buzsaw's hypothesis would otherwise deny the existence of limbed snakes, and of any snakes prior to the extinction of the dinosaurs). However this means that the new fossil must be one of these other snakes whose origin is outside Buzsaw's hypothesis - falsifying Buzsaw's claim that it represents any sort of motion towards his hypothesis.Whether Buzsaw had this in mind when he first posted in this thread or whether he suddenly made it up without realising that it invalidated his earlier posts such behaviour is hardly debating in good faith.

Not exactly. If you go into the archives, you will see that my hypothesis did not have God turning all dinos into snakes. Rather it has the reproductive genes of the dinos living at the time of the fall being transformed via the curse to cause all the offspring of the then living dinos to be born as belly crawlers.
Furthermore I have consistently alleged that the likely the parent dinos lived all the way up until the flood which would have been some 1500 years or so. The atmospheric pre flood chemical makeup, et al, imo, could translate hundreds of years into millions of dating years as per the chemical makeup of the environment today. If man lived around a thousand years, it is feasible that the dinos could have lived until the flood caused their extinction, only the young offspring belly crawlers being taken in the ark. Thus snakes preceeded the extinction of the dinos. I believe even now some reptiles such as certain species of turtles live substantially longer than humans.I need to be out of town most of the rest of today. I'll try to get some other responses in another time. Thanks for your patience.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW

quote:

---

If you go into the archives, you will see that my hypothesis did not have God turning all dinos into snakes. Rather it has the reproductive genes of the dinos living at the time of the fall being transformed via the curse to cause all the offspring of the then living dinos to be born as belly crawlers.
Furthermore I have consistently alleged that the likely the parent dinos lived all the way up until the flood which would have been some 1500 years or so.

---

Even allowing that the figure of 1500 years is a typo this just makes things worse since the fossil supports none of this and all of it is contradicted by the scientiifc evidence.

quote:

---

The atmospheric pre flood chemical makeup, et al, imo, could translate hundreds of years into millions of dating years as per the chemical makeup of the environment today.

---

No, It couldn't.So, having made up an excuse why this fossil couldn't be one of your serpents you are now making more and sillier excuses to say that it is. That really speaks for itself.

No matter how much you want, Lamarckian evolution isn't true. If these offpsring were from the dinosaurs, how did they, in a single generation, lose their limbs and hips? Not even punk eq can accept something like this (again, correct me if I'm wrong, evos). It's more likely that they would be limbless because their limbs were chopped off, but this trait wouldn't be passed on because it's not genetically controlled in this example.

It looks like there may be additional information coming out.

---

Aslan is not a Tame LionEdited by jar, : appalin spallin

ROFL. Jar, you smartass!!