Sunday, April 20, 2008

Lots to Say.

So, it turns out that Yahoo! Jukebox is not compatable to any I-pod. Now, doesn't that suck? And because my dad's sick, he can't help me set up I-Tunes. So now I'm bored. Usually, I'd go on neopets, but my parents are anti-neo for no reason at the moment. So I'm looking at this guy's blog who posted on my Expelled comment the other day. Chatin' it up over there, trying, (politely) to help him understand. To tell you the truth, I could use some help. Here. I'll post the html or the url or whatever it's called: There, that should be it. Well, I guess that's all for now. Bye!!



NP said...

Hey Nano, congrats on your new er..Nano.

Anyway, you left a comment on my blog about there being no transitional fossils. I listed a couple of links, but I didn't realize you're an eighth grader so you might find the articles a little long and dry. But you should still check them out, because there are transitional fossils out there.

In fact, I just remembered that there was a fossil unearthed recently in Israel of a snake with tiny hindlegs; you can check it out here:

NP said...

Oops, here is the link:

BBC Link

Emmie said...

A snake with tiny hindlegs means nothing. infact in might even SUPPORT the Bible and creation.

"Cursed are you above all the livestock and all the wild animals! You will crawl on your belly and you will eat dust all the days of your life."
Genesis 2:10

This is God talking to the Serpent. a.k.a. snake. Who knows, maybe snakes had legs before God cursed them. This so called fossil could even support that, OR be the exact serpent God cursed.


NP said...

Hey emmie,

There's a few problems with your interpretation of the evidence.

First of all, do you accept that in general, the fossil layers get older as you go down the geological column?

If your hypothesis about snakes being cursed in the garden of Eden is true, wouldn't you expect the legged snakes to be in the oldest layer, i.e. the pre-Cambrian? The fossil was found in the late Cretaceous which is relatively recent.

Secondly, what does the small size of the hindlegs tell you? Does it suggest that the change from a legged snake to a legless one was sudden, or more gradual through a series of intermediates?

Thirdly, we observe something similar in fossils of ancestral whales as well, where they have hindlegs. Were whales also cursed to lose their hindlegs?

If indeed organisms were cursed to lose certain anatomical features, what kind of scientific evidence would there be for that curse?

Emmie said...

*sigh* I choose not to battle you. I choose not to judge you. For God will do the judging, not me. I'm so sorry. I will pray for you.


Nano said...

Well, I say that why would whales go backwards in evolution? If evolution is true, than why would a would lose it's legs after evolving them?

NP said...

Nano, the whales are not going backward in evolution.

Remember, evolution by natural selection occurs because (i) variation is present in a population, and (ii) those animals which are better adapted to the environment tend to live longer and reproduce more. Therefore, whatever gives the animal a survival advantage is what is important.

In the case of whales, their ancestors were amphibious i.e. they lived on both land and in water. So having hind legs for walking on land was useful. But over time as the hind legs grew shorter, this allowed them to be better adapted to living in the water, as it eliminated drag.

If a body part is no longer essential for survival, it may be lost or change function over the course of evolution. They become known as vestigial structures.

You don't have to judge or battle me. I'm not asking you to do either. I'm just asking you to consider the evidence, and decide for yourself. Fossils of this kind are very much a part of reality - and of God's creation, if you're a believer. They shouldn't be dismissed.

Nano said...

The whales are still backwards. That THEORY is like, the opposite of evolution. If evolution was true, why would whales lose their legs after evolving them and, "crawling up onto land, out of the muck"?