Faith fails to protect idiot from snake bites.

[babe]

Oh, since we're on topic about snakes here. . . .

While I was doing some library research on genetic sequencing that has been done for certain vital enzymes, stuff vital to many life forms which has been used in some cases to construct "evolutionary trees" with estimates of time lapsed since various branches diverged, I found not all proteins agree on the "tree".

For example, while few would be surprized at evidence showing practically no difference between humans and pigs (insulin), most of us would cringe at sharing the exact same protein(infering no lapsed time since divergence, or arguably no divergence) between Humans and either pit vipers and yeast.

So, I can stand on the technicalities of Science to prove that at least some of us are no different from "snakes in the grass" or "opportunistic parasites".

 

[Hantlers]

Hearing a grown man say "naughty words" just makes me laugh inside.

 

[franklin]

Back in college, I was slightly intrigued at how well the explanation of evolution's timeline matched Moses' timeline. There's not a lot of detail in the Bible to go on, but what was there seemed accurate.

 

[carolinajazz]

Oh, since we're on topic about snakes here. . . .

...which snakes "evolved" first...the venomous ones or the non-venomous kind? If both are surviving together nicely right now, why and how did one snake suddenly decide to "acquire" venom along with the complicated apparatus to deliver the fatal bite, when it was doing just fine constricting it's victim? Since evolution teaches that you only "evolve" something if it's absolutely necessary for survival, when did venom become necessary to survive?

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

...which snakes "evolved" first...the venomous ones or the non-venomous kind? If both are surviving together nicely right now, why and how did one snake suddenly decide to "acquire" venom along with the complicated apparatus to deliver the fatal bite, when it was doing just fine constricting it's victim? Since evolution teaches that you only "evolve" something if it's absolutely necessary for survival, when did venom become necessary to survive?

There is nothing "sudden" about evolution.

 

[Siro]

...which snakes "evolved" first...the venomous ones or the non-venomous kind? If both are surviving together nicely right now, why and how did one snake suddenly decide to "acquire" venom along with the complicated apparatus to deliver the fatal bite, when it was doing just fine constricting it's victim? Since evolution teaches that you only "evolve" something if it's absolutely necessary for survival, when did venom become necessary to survive?

That's TBS level of insight. You guys should hook up.

 

[Scat]

That's TBS level of "insight". You guys should hook up.

Fixed.

 

[The Black Swordsman]

Venom involved many different times probably. Things evolve many times. For example flight evolved four times... Viviparity evolved about 120 times.

If he had my level insight he would be reciting with Shakespeare's level of eloquence with Einstein's level of intellect.

Haters are gonna hate, watch the jealous try to insult me with great failure .

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

I can respect TBS for his ability to stay in the red. I remember when BluesRocker set out to have the highest post count and still have a red bar, he failed because even he said stuff that was accidentally funny. TBS has just managed to stay completely dull and unlikeable for this whole time. Bravo.

Even that UtahJazz23972894729, who post all the dumb "Get this player" threads eventually got into the green.

 

[carolinajazz]

There is nothing "sudden" about evolution.

...I think you've missed the point! What would be the motivating factor of a snake changing or "evolving" the apparatus needed to inject venom into it's prey...if it's already "surviving" nicely by using constriction? The expression "suddenly" had to do with the motivating factor to change a whole way of existence when none was needed! Rarely, if ever, are such questions asked of evolutionist when it comes to explaining how a particular creature/specie acquired a complex method of survival necessary to continue it's existence! So you explain it to me....."suddenly" or at your convenience!

 

[One Brow]

...which snakes "evolved" first...the venomous ones or the non-venomous kind?

All life is continuously evolving. All snakes have been and will continue to be evolving contemporaneously.

If both are surviving together nicely right now, why and how did one snake suddenly decide to "acquire" venom along with the complicated apparatus to deliver the fatal bite, when it was doing just fine constricting it's victim?

Venom has evolved independently in not only various lines of snakes, but also amphibians and fish. It does not appear suddenly.

Since evolution teaches that you only "evolve" something if it's absolutely necessary for survival,

Evolution does not teach that.

when did venom become necessary to survive?

You don't think venom is an advantage?

 

[One Brow]

...I think you've missed the point!

Your point is flawed and based on a msunderstanding of evolution.

What would be the motivating factor of a snake changing or "evolving" the apparatus needed to inject venom into it's prey...if it's already "surviving" nicely by using constriction?

Evolution does not respond to motivations. One possible history (I have not researched this, and don't claim it to be authoritative) would be a feedback loop of gradually increasing venom strength and gradually specialized venom delivery.

Rarely, if ever, are such questions asked of evolutionist ...

On the contrary, questions like this are quite common from creationists.