Two legged snake fossil found

R

RedFox

New Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2004
Messages
1,277
Reaction score
0
China View
The Hindu

They found a fossil in Argentina of a two legged snake. It is thought that snakes evoluted from lizards. The fossil is from 90 million years ago and is under three feet long. Before, they did not know if snakes had their beginning on land or in the water. The fossil they found was the first known snake fossil with a sacrum bone in the hips. The anatomy is evidence that the snake lived on land or in burrows underground instead of in a marine environoment. The fossil shows that the legs were not strong enough for walking, but one of the legs was hurt during the snake's life, suggesting that the legs were actually used. The use is still unclear. A use suggested was bracing for attacks on prey.
 
Maybe the two-legged snake was a species that was always a two-legged snake from the get go, and became extinct.

Or, maybe the snake lost his legs when God cursed him:

Genesis 3:14
14 And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:

;)
 
Reba said:
Maybe the two-legged snake was a species that was always a two-legged snake from the get go, and became extinct.

Or, maybe the snake lost his legs when God cursed him:

Genesis 3:14
14 And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:

;)
Click to expand...

Yeah, that was my thought. I even saw a picture of an old fossil of a snake with 4 legs discovered several years ago or so.
 
Here, it says that a genetic study of snake and lizard DNA showed that snakes are not closely related to the lizards that lived in water, and are related to the lizards that lived on land. This is consistent with what the two legged snake fossils tell us. :mrgreen:

As for the story of how the snake lost its leg, how would one differentiate between it actually being true or being a story made up by people thousands of years ago to explain why snakes had no legs. Think of those Just So stories by Rudyard Kipling. It looks like the same sort of story because they don't have things like fossil and genetic evidence to back them up. ;)
 
Or the whole deal with the serpent in the Bible could be interpreted in symbolic fashion, and the way I think of it, both science and theology would hold true. If you're interested in this, just ask. ;)
 
Back
Top