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

reply to post by spitefulgod


A single non-functioning foot isn't a very good mutation for evolution either. And it's also highly unlikely in evolution.

You could ask the same question the other way around. Why would a snake evolve a single non-functioning leg anymore than it would adapt one? Well it wouldn't. Neither evolution or adaptation work that way.

You can make evolution look just as much a fool here with that logic because in evolution you can't just evolve an entire leg. Even if it doesn't function.

So, what we're talking about is the activation of a recessive gene. Most likely because of a genetic error, perhaps the kind that's caused from the DNA being copied over and over or perhaps the environment.

We know that because in evolution it's impossible to get an entire leg. What would happen is a small mutation of something like an appendage would start. Then enlarge. Then change shape. Then grow larger over many generations. Eventually that appendage would take on the shape of a leg.

All the while the structures to make the leg work would evolve over time as well. Just like the leg itself. The structures to make the leg work and be useful can't just pop into existence anymore than an entire leg can. They must slowly evolve over time as well right along with the actual leg.

Because the leg is worthless without the supporting structures to make it work, but so also are the supporting structures worthless without the leg. Both must evolve along side each other.

It would evolve muscles to maybe move at random. Then back and forth in one direction. Then it might evolve structures to allow for rotation of some sort. A very slow process.

It is highly unlikely that millions of years ago a fully non-functioning leg evolved with no supporting structures to make the leg work and yet somehow it provided enough advantage to the snake that the recessive gene wouldn't have been bred out in natural selection by now. In fact, I think it's easier to believe in sky fairies than that scenario lol. Evolution just doesn't work that way.

Okay, so what can we take away from that? Well, what we can take away from that is, that even though the leg doesn't work, the information stored in the snake's genetic code to build the supporting units that would make the leg fully functional are most likely STILL in that genetic code somewhere, but they simply didn't get activated correctly. That's the most logical and simplest explanation we have right now.

The alternative explanation is that snakes spent millions of years evolving one single non-functioning leg that never did work. Not a very likely scenario based on what we know about evolution.

But the genetic code that controls growth of the supporting structures didn't activate when the leg did? Why? Most likely they're in there, so why didn't they turn on? Because the gene activated in error. Perhaps due to genetic damage.

That doesn't change in adaptation. In adaptation we have the exact same scenario. All the genetic code to build a fully functioning leg is present somewhere inside the genetic code. Part of it activated and part of it didn't. Now the leg is broke and doesn't work like it's supposed to? Why?

I don't know why but whatever explanation evolution provides will probably be the same answer adaptation provides because in this type of scenario there is no difference between evolution and adaptation. They both make the claim that all the genetic code is already available, but that it can be damaged. The only difference is where the code came from?

This doesn't answer that question either way.

[edit on 23-9-2009 by tinfoilman]

[edit on 23-9-2009 by tinfoilman]

Originally posted by spitefulgod
reply to post by DaRAGE

 

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]

Actually many religious people are mistaken when talking about species. What they don't understand is species is a term defined by scientists and what it means to be one species or another is a scientific term and is determined by a scientific definition that God wasn't really concerned with.

In the Bible species or "kinds" of animals does not have the same meaning as it does to a modern scientist. They're using the same words, but they have different meanings. The word natural also has a different meaning in the Bible than the scientific definition of the word natural means too. This causes a lot of problems.

For example a scientist describes any event that can be observed in nature as natural. Something that happens in nature. So, according to the scientific definition everything that happens is natural because everything happens in nature with nature meaning the universe. There is no such thing as unnatural according to their definition. Whatever happens is natural.

In the Bible natural has a different definition. Natural means according to God's plan. Just because an animal is doing something doesn't mean it's natural for you. You're not just an animal. God has a plan for you yada yada you know. Not the same as in science where everything an animal does in nature is natural just because it's an animal and animals only do natural things. See the difference?

Okay, so when it comes to species and what's natural and what's not natural it's pointless to argue because everyone is using the same words, but they have different definitions depending on which side of the argument one is on.


[edit on 23-9-2009 by tinfoilman]

[edit on 23-9-2009 by tinfoilman]

reply to post by tinfoilman


I'm not saying it's evolution, I'm saying it's proof of evolution since it shows that in this animals ancestry it once had functioning feet and was clearly a different animal from what it is now.

Originally posted by spitefulgod
reply to post by tinfoilman

 

I'm not saying it's evolution, I'm saying it's proof of evolution since it shows that in this animals ancestry it once had functioning feet and was clearly a different animal from what it is now.

Clearly a different animal? I'll ask a question then. Let's say a human child is born with a genetic abnormality that causes them to be born with no legs? Is it a different animal? Is it not human? If my son were to be born without legs or arms it wouldn't even be human is what you're saying?

But all of a sudden when a snake is born with no legs it is a different animal right? Double standards perhaps? Are the goal posts being moved on me?

The Bible uses a different classification system for animals. In that system the two animals would be considered the same animal. In our current system they would not. But it's just comparing apples to oranges. They're two different systems. The Biblical system is actually the consistent one in my opinion though.

In the Biblical system a snake with legs is the same animal as snake without legs, a serpent. A human with legs is the same animal as a human born without legs, a human.

Our current system is not so consistent. A snake with legs is a different animal than a snake without legs, but a human without legs is still a human? What? Not consistent.

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 out?

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 off.

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]

reply to post by spitefulgod


It's not fake, but it's not the snakes let at all. Take a closer look, the snake ate a lizard and the leg just protruded out of the snake, you can even see the bulge in it's stomach of the lizard. This story is rather old.