...they shall lick the dust like a serpent, like the crawling things of the earth;
Micah 7:17
"....a tiny snake fossil (2 in long) from Myanmar, thought to be an embryo or a very young baby.
The young snake’s bones were beautifully preserved in amber, a plastic-like material that was formerly tree resin. The fossil shows 97 vertebrae and ribs but the skull was not found.
Some nearby shed snake skin fragments are assumed to be from the creature. However, there was no trace of hind legs or even a pelvis (hip), though these are known from certain ‘younger’ fossil snakes.
This is significant because evolutionists believe that ‘earlier’ snakes (older than 100 Ma in their thinking) possessed legs but that these were gradually lost.
Therefore, as one moves through the fossil layers to more and more ‘recent’ times, they expect a reduction in the size of snake legs until
they are lost altogether. The fossil record does not support this idea and Xiaophis further frustrates the neat evolutionary story. While it lacked hip or limbs, ‘younger’ snake fossils possessed them, such as Eupodophis at 94 Ma. Modern snakes lack limbs.
Therefore, applying standard uniformitarian/evolutionary reasoning to the fossil evidence as it stands, legs were lost, regained and lost again during evolution, but this violates an evolutionary precept called Dollo’s Law [Dollo’s Law disallows evolutionary reversals].
In other words, the new fossil provides no evidence whatsoever that snake anatomy has altered during the alleged millions of years—hence the headlines about them being “frozen in time” and the admission that this represents, “A new chapter on early snake evolution.”
The snake fossil record continues to say ‘No’ to evolution!"
CMI
Micah 7:17
"....a tiny snake fossil (2 in long) from Myanmar, thought to be an embryo or a very young baby.
The young snake’s bones were beautifully preserved in amber, a plastic-like material that was formerly tree resin. The fossil shows 97 vertebrae and ribs but the skull was not found.
Some nearby shed snake skin fragments are assumed to be from the creature. However, there was no trace of hind legs or even a pelvis (hip), though these are known from certain ‘younger’ fossil snakes.
This is significant because evolutionists believe that ‘earlier’ snakes (older than 100 Ma in their thinking) possessed legs but that these were gradually lost.
Therefore, as one moves through the fossil layers to more and more ‘recent’ times, they expect a reduction in the size of snake legs until
Therefore, applying standard uniformitarian/evolutionary reasoning to the fossil evidence as it stands, legs were lost, regained and lost again during evolution, but this violates an evolutionary precept called Dollo’s Law [Dollo’s Law disallows evolutionary reversals].
In other words, the new fossil provides no evidence whatsoever that snake anatomy has altered during the alleged millions of years—hence the headlines about them being “frozen in time” and the admission that this represents, “A new chapter on early snake evolution.”
The snake fossil record continues to say ‘No’ to evolution!"
CMI