Semi-Viable Proof (if proven not to be a fake) of Evolution or possible gene splicing experiments

Here is a nice article about a one legged snake, yes the snake has a leg complete with claws and four toes, now seeing as it's completely a different species to the nearest reptile with feet it's quiet obvious that the genetic information is still imbeded and that the snake did evolve from a species that once had feet. Creationists please put your point of view across for this

One Legged Snake found in china

Can't show the image as it's copyrighted to the newspaper but click on the link

[edit on 22/9/2009 by spitefulgod]

[edit on 22/9/2009 by spitefulgod]

Yeah, I seen this, but the question is, why is there only one picture of this snake? Why no close up on the limb? Why no dissection photos (if they even dissected it).

Some people have pointed out that it might be just something the snake ate, that is protruding from the body, but looking at the picture, that doesn't look like any protrusion because you can see the mass of flesh it is connected to, and its not stretched.

I'm doubtful of this for 2 reasons, one being that its on the Sun, 2 being there's only one photo and the witness being a scared elderly woman.

Actually, looking closer at the picture, I take back my earlier statement about the protrusion, because I just realized that the snake's midsection looks like it's digesting something. The protruding object looks to me like a chicken foot that has ruptured it's gut on the side, you can see some grissel on the claws. Seems to me like a snake ate a chicken and the foot ruptured it's side and it was trying to digest it till the woman beat it to death.

[edit on 22-9-2009 by LeTan]

Screw copyright lol, you can't copyright life on earth!

Here it is, i'm at a lack of words right now, if it is true.

[edit on 22-9-2009 by Republican08]

reply to post by LeTan

---

Hopefully it's not a fake, I'm sure time will tell, it's been spouted by several news sources, the image itself looks real although as you've pointed out you can never tell, xrays from snakes have shown that they do have the reminates of legs on their skeleton although none to the extent shown in the article.

Just needs another 3 legs and some wings!

quite obviously, you know something they don't. a snake growing a single limb due to redundant genetic code, except that the leg is backward and upside down and in the wrong place. seems a tough one to explain, unless the snake swallowed a lizard that broke the skin on the snakes side!!

either way, a creationist could say "it's the work of the devil, an attempt to mislead you away from god, afterall, the serpent is the symbol of the devil, what other proof do you need"

reply to post by spitefulgod

---

If true, god will be quite pissed about his punishment toward the snake.

Now we must wait for it to speak english and tell us to eat apples...

I hear they keep doctors away!

depends on how accurate you are when you throw them!!

[edit on 22/9/09 by pieman]

Originally posted by pieman


If it is in fact real and part of the snakes body then it's pretty much the only viable reason, unless we count experimental gene splicing or something similar.



True, as Republican08 stated the snake once had legs in the bible before they were taken due to his naughtiness.

big, big "if's", especially where you're touting it as "definite proof", don't you think?

just for clarification, not all snakes have vestigial limbs or limb support structures. unless this is a boa/python then the if's are even bigger.

source

if this is a snake that normally has a skeleton consisting of a skull, ribs and vertebrae, then to develop a single, fully formed leg and clawed foot along with the associated support structure seems incredible!!

[edit on 22/9/09 by pieman]

reply to post by pieman

---

I changed the title just for you

reply to post by spitefulgod

---

if it were me writing it, it would read "Semi-Viable Proof (if proven not to be a fake) of Evolution or possible gene splicing experiments".

sorry, i just like poking alledged "proof of evolution" with a big stick. darwin would have wanted it that way.

[edit on 22/9/09 by pieman]

Oh my god.

It's the perfect title for the thread now!

Gasp

It's just all greatness. I must stray away!

Good job everyone!

reply to post by Republican08

---

sorry, did i get in the way of the christian bashing, sorry,didn't mean to spoil your fun.

Stump a creationist and you usually get 1 of 2 answers. God works in mysterious ways or It's the debil fooling you!

If serpents are so evil why did god create them, obviously if he is omnipotent he would know the outcome.

Anyways, not trying to derail/turn this into a theological debate, way too early in the morning for that.

reply to post by spitefulgod

---

Okay somebody said something about this that this is something the snake ate. Don't know about that. That might be the case.

If it's not though, then this actually might be disproof of evolution and more proof of the Intelligent Designers idea of adaptation. Which I don't really believe in BTW. Not a creationist or IDer, but I'll talk about it anyway.

Adaptation can happen in just a few generations given the right environment and you could see adaptation even in your life time. Even this week for that matter.

A thousand years is a long time when it comes to adaptation. It doesn't take millions or even billions of years like evolution does. The earth could only be a few thousand years old and it wouldn't be any problem at all for adaptation. It would be for evolution though.

After all it takes a lot of information in the DNA to build a leg if the theory of evolution is true.

But that's not what we see here. We see a snake with what seems almost to be a whole leg. So in one generation we went from no legs, to leg. BAM!

Well we're assuming here. Maybe there's a whole long line of snakes with just one leg somewhere, but that's a story for another day.

The evolutionist say it's an expression of a recessive gene. That's why it popped up so quick. Because the information was already there in the DNA somewhere.

In contrast an IDer or adaptationist, if you will, will say that obviously the creator was intelligent enough to include all the required information in the specie's DNA for the species to live in different environments.

Especially a creator like God who would know ahead of time that a flood so devastating was coming that it would change the environment for ever and that the environment would continue to change until the end of time. Sound like bunk? Let me you give you an example.

Most large software programs contain lots of what's called dead code or almost dead code that never gets ran 99 percent of the time, but when it is needed it's there and gets activated just like a recessive gene. Most of it is so the code will still run in different "environments" that it normally would not. Writing software code well so it can be portable and run in a multitude of "environments" is something we spend a lot of our time on actually.

However, it didn't evolve that way on its own. The coders planned for that as they created the software and planned it very painstaking every step of the way. And software programs are a lot less complex than DNA.

So, even humans are smart enough to add extra information to our creations so they can work in strange new environments. Would we suggest that a God would be any less thoughtful when coding our DNA? I highly doubt it. He's gotta be smarter than I am and I'm smart enough to do it with my creations.

The animals would need to adapt, so beef up the genetic code right from the get go. Just like I do my software code so it'll run on more machines than just your own.

No need for evolution. The information was always present in the DNA they would say.

Notice that the claim is the same on both sides. Both the Evolutionist and the Intelligent Designers make the same claim. The information was ALREADY present in the DNA. So, we see that this isn't proof for either side. It just leaves us with the same question we had before.

Where did the information come from to begin with? Evolution? Or the creator? I don't know. Don't ask me.

However, the only difference is, is that adaptation only takes a few generations to get going. Evolution can take billions of years or even longer.

Also, you seen those bacteria experiments where a scientist can get bacteria to mutate in a lab to synthesis new chemicals such as nylon for food?

Yet again, only takes a few months. They can also cause RNA to mutate in but a few hours.

The more evidence I see, it seems more and more is stacking up that evolution happens much more quickly than we thought it could.







[edit on 22-9-2009 by tinfoilman]

reply to post by tinfoilman

---

I doubt one (probably nonfunctional) foot would be a good adaption for a snake given it's in the same environment as other snakes, genetic throwback in my opinion, as you stated an evolutionist would say, definitely not a mutation as it's too complex, again as you stated.

[edit on 22/9/2009 by spitefulgod]

itsnot proof of gene splicing or evolution.

Just imagine there is one bird kind on an island. 10 years later there are 8 different bird kinds on the island but all are originally from the one bird kind. yet all the birds are different as just say thier beaks are different, very different. we have the genetic material still there in our genes, still there in our DNA. It just hasn't been activated!!!! It's the 90% junk DNA we have!!!!

reply to post by DaRAGE

---

But if true it shows that the snake had an ancestor that once had legs so that the snake species evolved from something that we would consider a completely different species and not just a different breed, something that people who don't submit to evolution always cite

evolution affects only the species and doesn't create new species, that's GODs work.

Or so I'm led to believe that's what they think.

[edit on 22/9/2009 by spitefulgod]

reply to post by pieman

---

Damit man, I totally messed up my monitor,when i read that ,next time warn us coffe drinkers when reading, LOL !!