An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

[universalchiro]

you should ask 'm the function of a male nipple

"A frequently promoted evolutionary view of male nipples is that they are leftovers from our evolutionary past. They are often considered to be vestigial organs. The vestigial idea suggests they were functional in the past, but as the evolution of man progressed, their function was lost. Upon close examination, this view does not make sense. In fact, this is a very poor evidence for evolution.

If male nipples are, in fact, vestigial, they must have had a more robust function in the past. Does the evolutionist actually suggest that our male evolutionary ancestors breast-fed newborns, and that somehow as evolution progressed, this ability was lost? Alternatively, would the evolutionist argue that our ancestors were all females, that modern males diverged from this all female population, and that in this process they lost the ability to lactate?

Actually, evolution posits that mammals evolved from reptiles and that the divergence of male and female took place first in reptiles. Why then would another divergence occur as humans began to evolve? In reality, if evolution were true, then it could be argued that male nipples are still developing and that men should be able to breast-feed in the future!

The creation model provides a much better explanation for the presence of nipples in males. Male nipples are not a vestige of evolution but are instead a vestige of embryology. They in no way diminish the abilities of the creator God, but are actually another example of His wisdom. Nipples in males are actually an evidence of “design economy.”

Very early in their maturation, male and female human embryos are essentially the same. All these embryos have structures that will ultimately form the defining physical characteristics of male and female. In the early stages of development, all embryos have both the Wolffian duct and the Mullerian ducts, for instance. Under the influence of a Y chromosome, the Wolffian system develops into the internal and external structures of male anatomy, and the Mullerian ducts regress. Conversely, in the absence of a Y chromosome, the Wolffian system regresses considerably, and the Mullerian system develops to its full potentials, forming many of the female anatomical structures.

It should be clarified, however, that embryos do not all “start out female.” The genetic makeup of each individual is in place from the time of fertilization. Thus the “programming” for “male” and “female” is determined from the outset, and the anatomical gender is simply a result of the expression of those genes.

The mammary duct system and the associated nipple is likewise the same in both genders, developing during the sixth week. The rudimentary mammary duct system remains indistinguishable at birth. This tissue is hormonally sensitive, and it can, in either gender, respond to maternal estrogen transferred across the placenta by producing a secretion known as “witch’s milk.” Male and female breast tissue remains poorly developed until influenced by estrogen in the early stages of puberty in the female. If nipples and breasts are “useless” to males, they are equally useless to prepubescent girls, and for that matter are “useless” to any woman who is not breastfeeding a child.

It should be noted that male nipples are not useless, as has been suggested. They are very sensitive and are a source of sexual stimulation. Further, to characterize them as vestigial is problematic, as they are fully vascularized and have more than adequate nerve supply. Why would this be so if they were, in fact, a worthless by-product of our evolutionary ancestry?

Far from being a problem for creationists, the presence of nipples in males is actually another example of the wisdom and creativity of the God we serve. It is, in fact, the evolutionists who have a problem with this issue, as they can provide no reason for the existence and persistence of male nipples in an evolutionary scenario.

Sincerely,
Dr. Tommy Mitchell"
http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... ve-nipples
Well written article. The evidence is there of our creator, one can willfully be blind to the creator and force all observations to evolution and remain in the faith of evolution, or pray for truth and seek the truth above all.

[AndyDufresne]

one can willfully be blind

I agree with this part of your post.


--Andy

[Viceroy63]

you should ask 'm the function of a male nipple

"A frequently promoted evolutionary view of male nipples is that they are leftovers from our evolutionary past. They are often considered to be vestigial organs. The vestigial idea suggests they were functional in the past, but as the evolution of man progressed, their function was lost. Upon close examination, this view does not make sense. In fact, this is a very poor evidence for evolution.

If male nipples are, in fact, vestigial, they must have had a more robust function in the past. Does the evolutionist actually suggest that our male evolutionary ancestors breast-fed newborns, and that somehow as evolution progressed, this ability was lost? Alternatively, would the evolutionist argue that our ancestors were all females, that modern males diverged from this all female population, and that in this process they lost the ability to lactate?

Actually, evolution posits that mammals evolved from reptiles and that the divergence of male and female took place first in reptiles. Why then would another divergence occur as humans began to evolve? In reality, if evolution were true, then it could be argued that male nipples are still developing and that men should be able to breast-feed in the future!

The creation model provides a much better explanation for the presence of nipples in males. Male nipples are not a vestige of evolution but are instead a vestige of embryology. They in no way diminish the abilities of the creator God, but are actually another example of His wisdom. Nipples in males are actually an evidence of “design economy.”

Very early in their maturation, male and female human embryos are essentially the same. All these embryos have structures that will ultimately form the defining physical characteristics of male and female. In the early stages of development, all embryos have both the Wolffian duct and the Mullerian ducts, for instance. Under the influence of a Y chromosome, the Wolffian system develops into the internal and external structures of male anatomy, and the Mullerian ducts regress. Conversely, in the absence of a Y chromosome, the Wolffian system regresses considerably, and the Mullerian system develops to its full potentials, forming many of the female anatomical structures.

It should be clarified, however, that embryos do not all “start out female.” The genetic makeup of each individual is in place from the time of fertilization. Thus the “programming” for “male” and “female” is determined from the outset, and the anatomical gender is simply a result of the expression of those genes.

The mammary duct system and the associated nipple is likewise the same in both genders, developing during the sixth week. The rudimentary mammary duct system remains indistinguishable at birth. This tissue is hormonally sensitive, and it can, in either gender, respond to maternal estrogen transferred across the placenta by producing a secretion known as “witch’s milk.” Male and female breast tissue remains poorly developed until influenced by estrogen in the early stages of puberty in the female. If nipples and breasts are “useless” to males, they are equally useless to prepubescent girls, and for that matter are “useless” to any woman who is not breastfeeding a child.

It should be noted that male nipples are not useless, as has been suggested. They are very sensitive and are a source of sexual stimulation. Further, to characterize them as vestigial is problematic, as they are fully vascularized and have more than adequate nerve supply. Why would this be so if they were, in fact, a worthless by-product of our evolutionary ancestry?

Far from being a problem for creationists, the presence of nipples in males is actually another example of the wisdom and creativity of the God we serve. It is, in fact, the evolutionists who have a problem with this issue, as they can provide no reason for the existence and persistence of male nipples in an evolutionary scenario.

Sincerely,
Dr. Tommy Mitchell"
http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... ve-nipples
Well written article. The evidence is there of our creator, one can willfully be blind to the creator and force all observations to evolution and remain in the faith of evolution, or pray for truth and seek the truth above all.

'
Great Answer! And from a Doctor no less. With link and all. Wow!

Thanks for posting that.

I would also add that in our DNA is written the codes and plans for every organ, male and female. In fact it has been compared that the sexual organs of males and female are mirror images of each other inverted inside out. Genes control the turning on and off of many items like if we have blond hair or dark, for example. Assuming that our genes have Blond hair in it already. But this does not mean that we must have blond hair just because it is in our Genes.

In the case of the nipples, they are already in the DNA blue print of life and can't simply be erased. But in the male those genes that allow for the breast feeding of children is simply turned off. But the design of nipples themselves are not erased from the original blueprint of a human being.

But as God the Creator has designed us with multiple uses for all of our features, it should not be surprising that while men can not provide mother's milk through their nipples, that male nipples are in fact completely useful and not vestigial.

[waauw]

you should ask 'm the function of a male nipple

"A frequently promoted evolutionary view of male nipples is that they are leftovers from our evolutionary past. They are often considered to be vestigial organs. The vestigial idea suggests they were functional in the past, but as the evolution of man progressed, their function was lost. Upon close examination, this view does not make sense. In fact, this is a very poor evidence for evolution.

If male nipples are, in fact, vestigial, they must have had a more robust function in the past. Does the evolutionist actually suggest that our male evolutionary ancestors breast-fed newborns, and that somehow as evolution progressed, this ability was lost? Alternatively, would the evolutionist argue that our ancestors were all females, that modern males diverged from this all female population, and that in this process they lost the ability to lactate?

Actually, evolution posits that mammals evolved from reptiles and that the divergence of male and female took place first in reptiles. Why then would another divergence occur as humans began to evolve? In reality, if evolution were true, then it could be argued that male nipples are still developing and that men should be able to breast-feed in the future!

The creation model provides a much better explanation for the presence of nipples in males. Male nipples are not a vestige of evolution but are instead a vestige of embryology. They in no way diminish the abilities of the creator God, but are actually another example of His wisdom. Nipples in males are actually an evidence of “design economy.”

Very early in their maturation, male and female human embryos are essentially the same. All these embryos have structures that will ultimately form the defining physical characteristics of male and female. In the early stages of development, all embryos have both the Wolffian duct and the Mullerian ducts, for instance. Under the influence of a Y chromosome, the Wolffian system develops into the internal and external structures of male anatomy, and the Mullerian ducts regress. Conversely, in the absence of a Y chromosome, the Wolffian system regresses considerably, and the Mullerian system develops to its full potentials, forming many of the female anatomical structures.

It should be clarified, however, that embryos do not all “start out female.” The genetic makeup of each individual is in place from the time of fertilization. Thus the “programming” for “male” and “female” is determined from the outset, and the anatomical gender is simply a result of the expression of those genes.

The mammary duct system and the associated nipple is likewise the same in both genders, developing during the sixth week. The rudimentary mammary duct system remains indistinguishable at birth. This tissue is hormonally sensitive, and it can, in either gender, respond to maternal estrogen transferred across the placenta by producing a secretion known as “witch’s milk.” Male and female breast tissue remains poorly developed until influenced by estrogen in the early stages of puberty in the female. If nipples and breasts are “useless” to males, they are equally useless to prepubescent girls, and for that matter are “useless” to any woman who is not breastfeeding a child.

It should be noted that male nipples are not useless, as has been suggested. They are very sensitive and are a source of sexual stimulation. Further, to characterize them as vestigial is problematic, as they are fully vascularized and have more than adequate nerve supply. Why would this be so if they were, in fact, a worthless by-product of our evolutionary ancestry?

Far from being a problem for creationists, the presence of nipples in males is actually another example of the wisdom and creativity of the God we serve. It is, in fact, the evolutionists who have a problem with this issue, as they can provide no reason for the existence and persistence of male nipples in an evolutionary scenario.

Sincerely,
Dr. Tommy Mitchell"
http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... ve-nipples
Well written article. The evidence is there of our creator, one can willfully be blind to the creator and force all observations to evolution and remain in the faith of evolution, or pray for truth and seek the truth above all.

This answers nothing. It doesn't give a good explanation for a function of the male nipple. The guy talks about design economy, except he overlooks that from a materialistic point of view this isn't economically efficient at all. Instead of smooth skin, you get a little bump(extra material, extra energy in development). And why suddenly think about standardization(design economy), when so many other aspects of the human body development aren't standardized at all(for example shape of the face).

Also he talks about sexual stimulation, when not all males can get sexually stimulated by the nipple, not even all females. So how would this theory of functionality apply to these people?

Lastly evolution doesn't state that the male nipple must have had a function in the past or should have in the future. It shows the inefficiency in case of creationism.

But because the genetic "default" is for males and females to share characters, the presence of nipples in males is probably best explained as a genetic correlation that persists through lack of selection against them, rather than selection for them

So, why do men have nipples? Because females do.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=why-do-men-have-nipples

[waauw]

Great Answer! And from a Doctor no less. With link and all. Wow!

Thanks for posting that.

I would also add that in our DNA is written the codes and plans for every organ, male and female. In fact it has been compared that the sexual organs of males and female are mirror images of each other inverted inside out. Genes control the turning on and off of many items like if we have blond hair or dark, for example. Assuming that our genes have Blond hair in it already. But this does not mean that we must have blond hair just because it is in our Genes.

In the case of the nipples, they are already in the DNA blue print of life and can't simply be erased. But in the male those genes that allow for the breast feeding of children is simply turned off. But the design of nipples themselves are not erased from the original blueprint of a human being.

But as God the Creator has designed us with multiple uses for all of our features, it should not be surprising that while men can not provide mother's milk through their nipples, that male nipples are in fact completely useful and not vestigial.

So basically you just wrote this text to show us you know highschool-level biology?

[Viceroy63]

"One-inch-long fossilized leg bone is visible on the surface of the fossilized Lebanese snake, but half the pelvis (where another leg would be expected) is buried in rock. The 19-inch-long (50 centimeter) snake (called Eupodophis descouensi) is one of only three snake fossils with its hind limbs preserved, so breaking it open to look for the other leg was out of the question, said study researcher Alexandra Houssaye of the Museum National d'Histoire Naturelle in Paris."
http://www.livescience.com/11816-rays-r ... n-leg.html

Can anyone who is into "evolutionary" theory, explain just how it is possible that we have tons of Dinosaur bones from as far back as 150 million years ago (supposedly), and a shameful amount of fossilized remains in the geologic column going back as far as 400 million years, but only 3 snake fossils in existence from 90 million years ago? Just how does evolution explain this oddity?

[Woodruff]

Could you evolve a tailbone on your intellect please?

He's wearing his tailbone for a hat.

[betiko]

Viceroy just a question about your sig; what fact do you hold exactly regarding the origins of mankind?

[waauw]

"One-inch-long fossilized leg bone is visible on the surface of the fossilized Lebanese snake, but half the pelvis (where another leg would be expected) is buried in rock. The 19-inch-long (50 centimeter) snake (called Eupodophis descouensi) is one of only three snake fossils with its hind limbs preserved, so breaking it open to look for the other leg was out of the question, said study researcher Alexandra Houssaye of the Museum National d'Histoire Naturelle in Paris."
http://www.livescience.com/11816-rays-r ... n-leg.html

Can anyone who is into "evolutionary" theory, explain just how it is possible that we have tons of Dinosaur bones from as far back as 150 million years ago (supposedly), and a shameful amount of fossilized remains in the geologic column going back as far as 400 million years, but only 3 snake fossils in existence from 90 million years ago? Just how does evolution explain this oddity?

People already explained this in the God-topic. Some animals have harder bones than others. The harder the bone, the more chance of fossilization. Reptiles and amphibians though often have a calcium deficiency.

http://www.triciaswaterdragon.com/calciumdeficiency.htm

[Viceroy63]

"One-inch-long fossilized leg bone is visible on the surface of the fossilized Lebanese snake, but half the pelvis (where another leg would be expected) is buried in rock. The 19-inch-long (50 centimeter) snake (called Eupodophis descouensi) is one of only three snake fossils with its hind limbs preserved, so breaking it open to look for the other leg was out of the question, said study researcher Alexandra Houssaye of the Museum National d'Histoire Naturelle in Paris."
http://www.livescience.com/11816-rays-r ... n-leg.html

Can anyone who is into "evolutionary" theory, explain just how it is possible that we have tons of Dinosaur bones from as far back as 150 million years ago (supposedly), and a shameful amount of fossilized remains in the geologic column going back as far as 400 million years, but only 3 snake fossils in existence from 90 million years ago? Just how does evolution explain this oddity?

People already explained this in the God-topic. Some animals have harder bones than others. The harder the bone, the more chance of fossilization. Reptiles and amphibians though often have a calcium deficiency.

http://www.triciaswaterdragon.com/calciumdeficiency.htm

If you think your lizard has calcium deficiency (Metabolic Bone Disease- MBD) :
Signs and Symptoms of MBD
http://www.triciaswaterdragon.com/calci ... cy.htm#mbd

Waauw; That link is for people that own lizards as pets and want to take better care of them. It does not answer the question of the oddity in collected fossilized specimen and if there is a link that would indicate that this was true, That bone density affects the fossilization process, then that is the link you should be posting and not a book on how to take better care of your reptiles because they have weak bones.

The question is very simple and to the point. It is odd that there are only three Snake fossils with limbs from assummingly 90 million Years ago for the tens of thousands collected bones of just the dinosaurs. What happened then within 90 million years that we do not see any more snakes with hips and legs?

The T-Rex was around since (presumably) 65 million years ago and we have tons of those types of bones? So why only 3 from 90 million years ago? And what about snakes from 150 million years ago? Or did that type of snake just do a sort of "Cambrian Explosion" with the legs before dying out?

It simply does not seem gradual or logical to me that through the same millions of years that we have collected all of these bones and many of the same type, that there exist only 3 fossilized specimens for snakes with legs in the world.

Viceroy just a question about your sig; what fact do you hold exactly regarding the origins of mankind?

That it did not evolved from lower life forms. That is a fact to be sure and evolution the premise accepted as fact.

[waauw]

"One-inch-long fossilized leg bone is visible on the surface of the fossilized Lebanese snake, but half the pelvis (where another leg would be expected) is buried in rock. The 19-inch-long (50 centimeter) snake (called Eupodophis descouensi) is one of only three snake fossils with its hind limbs preserved, so breaking it open to look for the other leg was out of the question, said study researcher Alexandra Houssaye of the Museum National d'Histoire Naturelle in Paris."
http://www.livescience.com/11816-rays-r ... n-leg.html

Can anyone who is into "evolutionary" theory, explain just how it is possible that we have tons of Dinosaur bones from as far back as 150 million years ago (supposedly), and a shameful amount of fossilized remains in the geologic column going back as far as 400 million years, but only 3 snake fossils in existence from 90 million years ago? Just how does evolution explain this oddity?

People already explained this in the God-topic. Some animals have harder bones than others. The harder the bone, the more chance of fossilization. Reptiles and amphibians though often have a calcium deficiency.

http://www.triciaswaterdragon.com/calciumdeficiency.htm

If you think your lizard has calcium deficiency (Metabolic Bone Disease- MBD) :
Signs and Symptoms of MBD
http://www.triciaswaterdragon.com/calci ... cy.htm#mbd

Waauw; That link is for people that own lizards as pets and want to take better care of them. It does not answer the question of the oddity in collected fossilized specimen and if there is a link that would indicate that this was true, That bone density affects the fossilization process, then that is the link you should be posting and not a book on how to take better care of your reptiles because they have weak bones.

The question is very simple and to the point. It is odd that there are only three Snake fossils with limbs from assummingly 90 million Years ago for the tens of thousands collected bones of just the dinosaurs. What happened then within 90 million years that we do not see any more snakes with hips and legs?

The T-Rex was around since (presumably) 65 million years ago and we have tons of those types of bones? So why only 3 from 90 million years ago? And what about snakes from 150 million years ago? Or did that type of snake just do a sort of "Cambrian Explosion" with the legs before dying out?

It simply does not seem gradual or logical to me that through the same millions of years that we have collected all of these bones and many of the same type, that there exist only 3 fossilized specimens for snakes with legs in the world.

Viceroy just a question about your sig; what fact do you hold exactly regarding the origins of mankind?

That it did not evolved from lower life forms. That is a fact to be sure and evolution the premise accepted as fact.

1. Large parts of the article talk about reptiles and amphibians in general. It states that the calcium intake that reptiles like snakes get depends on which animals they eat. Some animals have less calcium, others have more. Snakes aren't like mammels. A lot of snakes for example eat soft-bodied creatures like frogs, insects, fishes, ...

2. If you really want an additional source:

Organisms are only rarely preserved as fossils in the best of circumstances, and only a fraction of such fossils have been discovered. This is illustrated by the fact that the number of species known through the fossil record is less than 5% of the number of known living species, suggesting that the number of species known through fossils must be far less than 1% of all the species that have ever lived.

The fossil record is heavily slanted toward organisms with hard parts, leaving most groups of soft-bodied organisms with little to no role.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil

3. You do realize that a T-rex is A LOT bigger than the average snake and thus more easily to spot.

4. It is not a fact that humans didn't evolve. You have no conclusive proof whatsoever. How many times do I have to tell you this? All your proof that you and your buddies have mentioned so far only make evolutionism more doubtful, but it doesn't disprove it, nor do they conclusively prove creationism. In fact a scientist in one of the video's that you yourself posted said this, but of course because of your incredible bias you disregarded this.
And before you start telling me I'm lieing, go look at the video you posted at the bottom of page 71 in this topic.

5. there have been tons of snake fossils found even if they weren't complete.

[crispybits]

Edit - fastposted while I was typing - ah well...

Firstly, it's not really an anomaly that we only have a handful of legged snake fossils. Yes there are hundreds or thousands of dinosaur fossils, but you have to remember that the vast majority of these fossils come from the large dinosaurs like T-Rex and Brontosaurus (to name but two) where even a child with half hour of basic training could identify a large bone fossil while digging. Compare and contrast to snakes, where the bones are much smaller and therefore harder to spot, even for trained diggers. Then add in the cultural value of the finds, in the late 19th and early 20th century a dinoaur fossil was worth a lot of money, a snake fossil not so much and so many could have been found and discarded in favour of the richer pickings.

Add to that the fact that Chinese medicine in particular, and eastern medicine in general, snake bones ground into dust are a treatment for many types of bone disease, particularly osteoperosis, and you begin to see even more why finds of these intermediates didn't necessarily find their way to laboratories and universities (and yes I know fossils are stone not bone but did all of the practictioners of chinese medicine know this when they had their "fossil gold rush" last century?)

Secondly, we're still finding fossils of new species of dinosaurs that haven't previously been found, or at least identified.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-22436942

If we're still finding fossil number 1 from some species, and it's noted that particularly the smaller species may be the ones where we have the least complete record in that very article, then to be at fossil number 3 for legged snakes is hardly a surprise.

Finally, the current research seems to indicate that snakes were desert dwelling burrowing lizards that lost their legs over time, probably due to the legs being a hindrance when digging through the ground. Therefore it may be that we do actually have further fossils from before 90 million years ago of lizards with short legs who are intermediate species between the full fledged leg lizards which snakes evolved from and the snakes. As the fossil record is patchy and incomplete it would be like looking at the rusted out remains of cars that have been left to rot for a few hundred years and figuring out which model of Chevrolet first had coffee cup holders installed that sprung out of the dashboard instead of being placed in the centre console between the seats (yes it's a shaky analogy but hopefully you see my point).

[betiko]

Viceroy just a question about your sig; what fact do you hold exactly regarding the origins of mankind?

That it did not evolved from lower life forms. That is a fact to be sure and evolution the premise accepted as fact.

lol. so how is that a fact? you are so damn funny. What makes you so sure that our specie is not an evolution of lower forms, and how can you qualify it as a fact? That would be your (and other crazy people's) theory (actually a belief more than a theory but I will be nice). If you refute evolution for being a theory; how can you consider your own theory as a rock solid fact?
If your theory = fact because that is what you believe in, how do you think we can take you seriously along with your clown friends?

[PLAYER57832]

"One-inch-long fossilized leg bone is visible on the surface of the fossilized Lebanese snake, but half the pelvis (where another leg would be expected) is buried in rock. The 19-inch-long (50 centimeter) snake (called Eupodophis descouensi) is one of only three snake fossils with its hind limbs preserved, so breaking it open to look for the other leg was out of the question, said study researcher Alexandra Houssaye of the Museum National d'Histoire Naturelle in Paris."
http://www.livescience.com/11816-rays-r ... n-leg.html

Can anyone who is into "evolutionary" theory, explain just how it is possible that we have tons of Dinosaur bones from as far back as 150 million years ago (supposedly), and a shameful amount of fossilized remains in the geologic column going back as far as 400 million years, but only 3 snake fossils in existence from 90 million years ago? Just how does evolution explain this oddity?

You are asking a question that is not directly asked by evolutionists, because people who understand evolution understand fully how rare fossils are. It is only dissenters who seem to think that fossils "ought to" be more prominent than they are, and who have manufactured this as "justification" for why they don't believe evolution.

The basic problem is your failure to understand science. See, science starts with the known, the proven.. and goes from there. Sure, scientists have ideas that they pursue, discuss, etc. HOWEVER, those are just ideas. For them to be published, to become part of "real science" requires facts, documentation.

Scientists therefore might wonder why there are few fossils, may put forward a lot of ideas, but those are back-explanation for the fact that fossils ARE rare. Your mistake is in assuming that fossils ought not to be rare. They ARE rare. The FACT is that fossils are few and far between because it is almost a miracle that any fossils have been preserved at all, with the possible exception of those on the ocean floor and in other water bodies. We DO know that fossils exist and that they represent ancient species. The progression is such that no theory other that the idea of gradual change and mutation finally resulting in differentiation of species (aka "evolution"), matches the data.

[jonesthecurl]

Darwin did not initially look at fossils to come up with his theory, but living species.

[tzor]

Can anyone who is into "evolutionary" theory, explain just how it is possible that we have tons of Dinosaur bones from as far back as 150 million years ago (supposedly), and a shameful amount of fossilized remains in the geologic column going back as far as 400 million years, but only 3 snake fossils in existence from 90 million years ago? Just how does evolution explain this oddity?

Because snake skeletons aren't as sturdy as dinosaur skeletons.

[jonesthecurl]

Have you had this particular question answered enough times yet?

[Viceroy63]

"One-inch-long fossilized leg bone is visible on the surface of the fossilized Lebanese snake, but half the pelvis (where another leg would be expected) is buried in rock. The 19-inch-long (50 centimeter) snake (called Eupodophis descouensi) is one of only three snake fossils with its hind limbs preserved, so breaking it open to look for the other leg was out of the question, said study researcher Alexandra Houssaye of the Museum National d'Histoire Naturelle in Paris."
http://www.livescience.com/11816-rays-r ... n-leg.html

Can anyone who is into "evolutionary" theory, explain just how it is possible that we have tons of Dinosaur bones from as far back as 150 million years ago (supposedly), and a shameful amount of fossilized remains in the geologic column going back as far as 400 million years, but only 3 snake fossils in existence from 90 million years ago? Just how does evolution explain this oddity?

You are asking a question that is not directly asked by evolutionists, because people who understand evolution understand fully how rare fossils are. It is only dissenters who seem to think that fossils "ought to" be more prominent than they are, and who have manufactured this as "justification" for why they don't believe evolution.

The basic problem is your failure to understand science. See, science starts with the known, the proven.. and goes from there. Sure, scientists have ideas that they pursue, discuss, etc. HOWEVER, those are just ideas. For them to be published, to become part of "real science" requires facts, documentation.

Scientists therefore might wonder why there are few fossils, may put forward a lot of ideas, but those are back-explanation for the fact that fossils ARE rare. Your mistake is in assuming that fossils ought not to be rare. They ARE rare. The FACT is that fossils are few and far between because it is almost a miracle that any fossils have been preserved at all, with the possible exception of those on the ocean floor and in other water bodies. We DO know that fossils exist and that they represent ancient species. The progression is such that no theory other that the idea of gradual change and mutation finally resulting in differentiation of species (aka "evolution"), matches the data.

Player; Fossils not only seem rare but damn selective as well. I am not saying that fossils are not rare but in comparison over hundreds of millions of years of fossilization, there should be more then just three snake that walked fossilized. I don't know exactly how many but I can almost assure you that there are perhaps tens of thousands of Snake fossils collected throughout the world.

I refer you back to Darwin's quote...

"But just in proportion as this process of extermination has acted on an enormous scale, so must the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record."
(The Origin of Species by Charles Darwin, 1859)

Far from believing that fossils are rare, Darwin also considered it odd that "Intermediary Species" fossils were so nonexistent. We are talking of hundreds of millions of years here, so if on average, only one one bone for every year is fossilized that is still hundreds of millions of bones. So if a snake only has say 100 bones altogether, then these three walking snakes represents 300 years of time and that would be rare enough. One snake on average for every hundred years; But only Three walking snakes out of millions of years???

Come on people, Think about it? In the field of Archeology, "Size does not matter!"

[crispybits]

The fossil record of snakes is relatively poor because snake skeletons are typically small and fragile, making fossilization uncommon. Fossils readily identifiable as snakes (though often retaining hind limbs) first appear in the fossil record during the Cretaceous period. The earliest known snake fossils come from sites in Utah and Algeria, represented by the genera Coniophis and Lapparentophis, respectively. These fossil sites have been tentatively dated to the Albian or Cenomanian age of the late Cretaceous, between 112 and 94 Ma ago. However, an even greater age has been suggested for one of the Algerian sites, which may be as old as the Aptian, 125 to 112 Ma ago.

Also, Darwin did not think this:

"Far from believing fossils are rare"

In fact in the very bit you quoted he said:

"the extreme imperfection of the fossil record"

[betiko]

Hey guess what; with darwin s scientific approach when building his theory, he had to look for arguments against it himself and confront them. If he wrote that it proves that he doesn t hide doubts under a rug like you often do.
You are just stubbornly repeating the same shit over and over for over a year in this thread. What do you think you are going to achieve? Convince someone here? That won t happen.
I could try for a year or so to convince you that "i can t believe it s not butter" is actually butter. You probably know it s not butter and i think you would get tired of listening to my arguments.

[Woodruff]

Viceroy just a question about your sig; what fact do you hold exactly regarding the origins of mankind?

That it did not evolved from lower life forms. That is a fact to be sure and evolution the premise accepted as fact.

How is that possibly a "fact"? What exactly is "factual" about it?

[Woodruff]

Have you had this particular question answered enough times yet?

Apparently not. <sigh>

[waauw]

Far from believing that fossils are rare, Darwin also considered it odd that "Intermediary Species" fossils were so nonexistent. We are talking of hundreds of millions of years here, so if on average, only one one bone for every year is fossilized that is still hundreds of millions of bones. So if a snake only has say 100 bones altogether, then these three walking snakes represents 300 years of time and that would be rare enough. One snake on average for every hundred years; But only Three walking snakes out of millions of years???

Come on people, Think about it? In the field of Archeology, "Size does not matter!"

As explained before, there are good reasons why snakelike creatures have been found less. As I already said, the bones of a snake are too soft compared to those of some other animals to get fossilized as easily.
And to assume size does not matter in archeology is absurd! Look at the many discoveries of past human civilizations. Archeologists almost always found the remnants of the big buildings before they found the tiny jewelry and pottery. That's because they are more easily to spot.

[PLAYER57832]

Viceroy just a question about your sig; what fact do you hold exactly regarding the origins of mankind?

That it did not evolved from lower life forms. That is a fact to be sure and evolution the premise accepted as fact.

You don't know how tempting it is to say something like "yeah, Eve did come from Adam" never mind that I believe that the original "Adam" was not really male, but some amalgamation -- anyway, on to serious answers
This is a heavy distortion of not just science, but the Bible. The Bible says we came from dust, but not how we came from dust. IN other references to other processes, that kind of language was used for indirect methods as well as direct.

Scientifically, we have some biological evidence that our form arose from another mammal, with the least distant ancestor joining us to the apes (way WAAAY back). However, there is more to being human than just form. How closely we are related to the Neanderthals, for example, is a question. Could our most recent ancestors interbreed with them? Did Neanderthals have things like religion? However, at some point it is clear that modern man emerged with "social" characteristics that distinguish us from the other hominid types. It is quite possible that nothing in biology will fully explain that.

BUT, to claim that your statement is "fact" is to go beyond any understanding of fact accepted by honest individuals.

[tzor]

Come on people, Think about it? In the field of Archeology, "Size does not matter!"

Ugh, you know I really meant bone density ... is this where I talk about the BBQ Turkey leg joke?

show

Yes it has to do with bone density and bone thickness. The larger the bone (and the larger the animal) the better chance that the bones will survive at least somewhat intact and not in a million fragments. That's why most of the land fossils that have been found are from animals with large bones.