Evolution Intelligent Design stasis

Stasis: Dinosaur-era baby snake looks just like modern ones

Spread the love
late Cretaceous baby snake in amber/ Yi Liu

From George Dvorsky at Gizmodo:

Scientists working in Myanmar have uncovered a nearly 100-million-year-old baby snake encased in amber. Dating back to the Late Cretaceous, it’s the oldest known baby snake in the fossil record, and the first snake known to have lived in a forested environment.

The discovery of a baby snake fossilized in amber shows that early snakes had spread beyond swamps and sea shores, finding their way into forested environments. What’s more, these ancient snakes bore a startling resemblance to those living today—a classic case of evolution not having to fix something that ain’t broke. These findings were published today in Science Advances. More.

“a classic case of evolution not having to fix something that ain’t broke.”?

Notice how, whether things change or stay the same, evolution (“Evolution?”), supposedly blind, random, and purposeless becomes a person who thinks, plans, and fixes … Darwin engaged in the same sort of talk:

It may be said that natural selection is daily and hourly scrutinizing, throughout the world, every variation, even the slightest; rejecting that which is bad, preserving and adding up all that is good; silently and insensibly working, wherever and whenever opportunity offers, at the improvement of each organic being in relation to its organic and inorganic conditions of life.

That’s probably why evolution can be, for so many, a religion—but one with very fluid moral obligations. One wonders, under what circumstances could evolution become a science again?

See also: Gunter Bechly: “Living fossils” under massive attack (unpopular implications)

Lizards and snakes backdated to Permian era, lizards lost or changed limbs many times

Colorful moth wings dated back to nearly 200 million years ago

and

Stasis: Life goes on but evolution does not happen

3 Replies to “Stasis: Dinosaur-era baby snake looks just like modern ones

  1. 1
    Silver Asiatic says:

    100 million years of mutations and random environmental changes and there was no significant change.

    That’s probably why evolution can be, for so many, a religion—but one with very fluid moral obligations.

    Yes, exactly. The one fixed moral obligation is to affirm evolutionary doctrine no matter what the evidence shows and never question it or allow it to be questioned or doubted.

    One wonders, under what circumstances could evolution become a science again?

    Sadly, we could almost substitute the term ‘biology’ for ‘evolution’ there. Or ‘zoology’ etc. To me, those are fascinating and beautiful areas of research and discovery that are almost entirely ruined by evolutionary propaganda.

    I would just hope that the absurd stupidity of evolution will become publicized enough that nobody will want to talk about it any more. The internet is helping to make that happen.

  2. 2
    OldAndrew says:

    The trouble is that in the current climate, one can appear educated by affirming belief in anything undirected and evolutionary and deriding any alternative without having any knowledge of either. Adherence to the religion of evolution is still seen as synonymous with education. You don’t have to know anything. You just have to kneel before it.

  3. 3
    Fasteddious says:

    Living fossils are embarrassing to Darwinists for two reasons:
    1. Genetic drift over millions of years is supposed to change the way a species looks and functions, yet by definition, the living fossils do not change significantly.
    2. Natural selection is supposed to ensure survival of the fittest, which implies raising the fitness bar for survival over the eons. But then how can the same species survive without change, 100 million years later, in a supposedly tougher environment?
    I expect Darwinists have stories that “explain” these apparent problems with their theory.

Leave a Reply