reply to post by spitefulgod
Actually I just had an idea. There is no way evolution can explain this without the scientists having to reexplain everything. This actually disproves
evolution as we know it today.
The leg is the more complicated design. You most likely wouldn't go from an animal with a leg to an animal without a leg. The leg most likely didn't
come until later.
According to evolution the first snake wouldn't of had any legs. It would have started as a simpler creature and evolved legs overtime. Not the other
way around like you're claiming. You're claiming that an animal without legs evolved from an animal with legs? That's evolution in REVERSE!
You see, the problem is something as complicated as legs are about near impossible to evolve unless they provide a competitive advantage in natural
selection over animals that don't have legs.
That means for the animal to then unevolve the legs later that the entire species would have had to gone against the grain of natural selection and
evolve backwards getting rid of their competitive advantage and then STILL SURVIVE while the snakes with competitive advantage of having legs died
In evolution what you would expect to see is snakes without legs and without any genetic codes for building legs that had still survived over time,
but also another species that had at one point split off and evolved separately from the snake that would have evolved legs over time.
But that's not what we see. What we see is snakes that have genetic coding in them to form legs, but hardly any actual snakes with legs! Why?
Evolution can not explain this without making the claim that all the snakes with legs died off while the ones that didn't have legs didn't die
But that is impossible because that means the legs would not have provided a competitive advantage. In fact that means the legs would caused the
snakes to die off QUICKER.
However, something as complex as a leg can't evolve UNLESS it provides a competitive advantage for the species! How can something that causes the
species to die off QUICKER be a competitive advantage? If it's not a competitive advantage how could it evolve?
The only way for evolution to explain this picture is to contradict itself by saying that an animal evolved legs because it provided a competitive
advantage that then made the new species die off even quicker leaving unused genetic code for growing legs left behind in animals that can't grow
legs and that never had legs? That makes no sense at all.
The simpler explanation is simply Intelligent Design. The theory is that an intelligent designer gave EVERY creature any genetic code their species
might need to adapt to their situation.
All creatures probably have all kinds of hidden genetic code hidden in them by the creator to grow wings and eyes and arms and legs and all kinds of
stuff. That's why you see these things pop up.
What is not likely is that snakes spent millions of years evolving legs and then CHANGED THEIR MINDS and got rid of the legs. So there is no way this
snake came from another animal that a long time ago had legs where that animal came from even yet another animal that didn't have legs. I'm sorry I
just don't buy the circular argument. Which comes first? The leg or no leg?
Only an intelligent designer that hid the genetic code for growing legs and all sorts of stuff in all or most creatures from the very start explains
what we see here.
And it may not even have been hidden. The Bible tells us this, "And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed
above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go,"
So according to the Bible the snake didn't use to slither around. It used to have legs and then God cursed it. So the Bible is actually correct then
if this story is true and not evolution.
Because according to the Bible the genetic code would have always been there the whole time because snakes USED to have legs but now they don't.
Evolution is wrong here because it states things would happen in reverse and that animals without legs would evolve the legs. You wouldn't start with
a leg and then go to no leg.
The only way to explain the recessive gene activation in this picture is if snakes USED to have legs just like the Bible tells us they did. Not if
evolution is true.
[edit on 23-9-2009 by tinfoilman]
[edit on 23-9-2009 by tinfoilman]