It's the first time scientists have found a snake with a sacrum, a bony feature supporting the pelvis, he [Hussam Zaher of the University of Sao Paulo in Brazil] said. That feature was lost as snakes evolved from lizards, and since this is the only known snake that hasn't lost it, it must be the most primitive known, he said.Catch that? Since we already know that snakes used to have legs and lost them through the process of evolution (having smaller / shorter / no legs confers a survival advantage, right?), a snake with a sacrum must therefore be more primitive. Nothing like assumptions that define the meaning of the evidence, eh? Of course, one couldn't possibly call this evidence for Gen 3:14 being accurate, could one?
Wednesday, April 19, 2006
Fossil Suggests Snakes Evolved on Land