Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Four-legged Snake Fossil Stuns Scientists, Ignites Controversy

Posted by Soulskill on from the i-have-had-it-with-these-multi-legged-snakes-on-this-multi-legged-plane dept.

sciencehabit writes: Scientists have described what they say is the first known fossil of a four-legged snake. The limbs of the 120-or-so-million-year-old, 20-centimeter-long creature are remarkably well preserved and end with five slender digits that appear to have been functional (abstract). Thought to have come from Brazil, the fossil would be one of the earliest snakes found, suggesting that the group evolved from terrestrial precursors in Gondwana, the southern remnant of the supercontinent Pangaea. But although the creature's overall body plan—and indeed, many of its individual anatomical features—is snakelike, some researchers aren't so sure that it is a part of the snake family tree.

153 comments

  1. Genesis! by Geoffrey.landis · · Score: 4, Funny

    The biblical literalists are going to love this one.

    --
    http://www.geoffreylandis.com
    1. Re:Genesis! by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      And the snake oil salesmen in the Bible Belt.

    2. Re:Genesis! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The biblical literalists are going to love this one.

      Why? Doesn't seem to be a problem for that perspective to me...

    3. Re:Genesis! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      And just the other day we learned that fossil dating is all wrong. The more science progresses, the closer scientists get to a literal reading of the Bible. Why walk the science path when you can be religious and already be at the end.

    4. Re:Genesis! by ilguido · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I don't see any reason why this is "stunning" or a big controversy. It's just a new fossil and they'll argue a bit on where it goes into the taxonomy tree... happens all the time.

      The fact is that, as always, those who found it are basically screaming "sensational discovery, mystery XYZ is finally solved", while other scientist are more cautious. It's the old theme of "sensationalism versus business as usual", dangerously close to the stance of attention whores.

      Having read the article, I think it's more likely that those weak limbs were used for tree climbing than for grabbing preys and probably this is not a snake but a specimen from some extinct group.

    5. Re:Genesis! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If you read TFA there is no mention of Creationists or any other religious reference. The "controversy" is over the origin of the fossil and "whether this is actually a snake"

      But don't let that stop you from getting your Christian Hate on.

    6. Re:Genesis! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Never miss an opportunity to diss on a people group, right?

    7. Re:Genesis! by XxtraLarGe · · Score: 1

      The biblical literalists are going to love this one.

      Aside from the 120 million year old part...

      --
      Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
    8. Re:Genesis! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I really hate Christian, do you know him?

    9. Re:Genesis! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And just the other day we learned that fossil dating is all wrong. The more science progresses, the closer scientists get to a literal reading of the Bible. Why walk the science path when you can be religious and already be at the end.

      Sounds like you didn't actually read that article at all, or really read the summary even.

    10. Re:Genesis! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "Christianity" in the US is nothing but a cult that rejects science, worships guns and war and is an anti-sex death cult.

      They are also under the delusion that capitalism is part of their religion and falls under their religious beliefs.

      Christianity, along with all religions, should be hated.

      A demon comes running to the Devil in a panic.

      The Devil asks, "What's wrong demon?!"

      The demon responds, "There is someone up there speaking the truth! We'll be out of business!"

      The Devil laughs. "Silly demon! They'll turn it into a religion and we'll have more business that ever!"

      -Old story.

    11. Re:Genesis! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That's how forgone conclusions work. Once you have committed to a conclusion, everything you see is skewed in that direction. Anything that is even suggestive of agreement appears to be "more proof" while any counter-evidence, no matter how confuting, is seen as "probably mistaken" if even there at all.

      To answer the OP's question....

      One walks the science path to find good reasons for their beliefs, rather than making a completely random guess as to which holy book already has it right. I am sure plenty of Muslims would use the same argument you did, in exactly the same way, to defend belief in the Quoran, and it does work just as well. Some of us would rather investigate reality than bet on superstition.

    12. Re:Genesis! by SuricouRaven · · Score: 2

      Snake taxonomy isn't really a tree. It's more of an overgrown hedge, full of thorns. This will be tidied up as the genetic comparisons are processed, but it's not a high-priority area of research.

    13. Re:Genesis! by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Religion is nothing but the easy way out.

      The opposite of "knowing" is not "not knowing". That can easily be remedied. If you do not know, you ask someone who does know, and then you know too. The opposite of knowing is believing. And believing is far more comfortable and convenient, and far less taxing than knowing.

      If I want to believe something, that's easily done. All it takes is a unilateral declaration of intent. Jesus the only son of God and my saviour? I believe. There, done. There is no huge investment of time and intellect necessary. A teapot in the middle of Jupiter? Sure, I believe. And done. I neither need someone showing me the ropes, nor do I need to spend any time or energy to do it.

      Knowing is far more taxing. To know something, you not only have to find someone who does already know to teach you, you also have to invest time and energy to understand. Understanding is one hugely important, critical prerequisite for knowing. And that takes time. And effort. And depending on your mental capabilities or prerequisite fundamental knowledge that effort may even prove futile.

      Believing is far more convenient. It only depends on you wanting. Knowing something also requires you to be able to and the investment of time.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    14. Re:Genesis! by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Not if they make it so easy.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    15. Re:Genesis! by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 2

      The certainty with which one feels a fact is true is actually an emotion, which is where everyone trips up.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    16. Re:Genesis! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I really hate Christian, do you know him?

      Yeah, that guy's a jerk.

    17. Re:Genesis! by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      "Look at me! First I'm an asshole, then I'm a victim!"

      I'll never understand that defense.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    18. Re:Genesis! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountain of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."
      ~Robert Jastrow

    19. Re:Genesis! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sitting at the peak of the mountain of ignorance doesn't sound to me like something to brag about...

    20. Re:Genesis! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Indeed, we see our realities don't we? I accept your retort... but do humbly disagree with your reading of the text.

      many blessings...

    21. Re:Genesis! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Baa, baa, baa!"
      ~Sheeple

    22. Re:Genesis! by pr0nbot · · Score: 1

      I too am remaining cautious, waiting till they find the other one Noah saved before declaring the mystery solved.

    23. Re:Genesis! by Anonymous+Cow+Ward · · Score: 1

      No, that only affects carbon dating. Most fossils are far too old to use carbon dating, as C14 has a relatively short half-life (compared to geologic timescales). As such, fossil dating shouldn't be affected.

      --
      Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
    24. Re:Genesis! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You do realize that for the Christian the sheep is a profoundly positive symbol. I can only assume you're meaning it as a compliment, and that's cool.

    25. Re:Genesis! by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Carbon dating is not used to date fossils.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    26. Re:Genesis! by rrohbeck · · Score: 1

      Pfft. God put those bones in the ground 6,000 years ago to test our faith, duh.

      --
      thegodmovie.com - watch it
    27. Re:Genesis! by ultranova · · Score: 1

      The fact is that, as always, those who found it are basically screaming "sensational discovery, mystery XYZ is finally solved", while other scientist are more cautious. It's the old theme of "sensationalism versus business as usual", dangerously close to the stance of attention whores.

      "Business as usual" is competition over limited funding, and that means marketing your accomplishments to show you can deliver results. Let's not look down on attention whores when We The People are the johns.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    28. Re:Genesis! by ultranova · · Score: 2

      The opposite of "knowing" is not "not knowing". That can easily be remedied. If you do not know, you ask someone who does know, and then you know too.

      Well, no. How do you know if the guy you asked actually knows anything about the matter but is simply making shit up as he goes or reciting some half-remembered factoid he heard from an unknown source? You can't. You can double-check, and quadruple-check, and so on, but ultimately every model of the world rests on unproven assumptions. After all, they're subject to the incompleteness theorems and as such can't be self-contained.

      But then again none of this matters, since science vs. religion was never about knowledge but simply a case of two memetic complexes - or, if you prefer, "gods" - fighting for territory in the noosphere. Humans merely get sucked into the fight due to being the physical platform on which the noosphere rests.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    29. Re:Genesis! by PRMan · · Score: 1

      It's a dragon. Next...

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    30. Re:Genesis! by PRMan · · Score: -1

      Says someone who has never tried a true faith in God... Believe me when I tell you, not believing is MUCH easier than believing, because believing costs everything you have...

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    31. Re:Genesis! by PRMan · · Score: -1, Troll

      Because it shows that there IS carbon in everything. Meaning that everything tests less than 50,000 years old.

      http://newgeology.us/presentation48.html

      So, evolutionists invented the idea of "background carbon" so that they could sidestep the fact that everything has carbon and is demonstrably young by the plain evidence.

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    32. Re: Genesis! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except we're all on fiat currency so there's no such thing as limited funding. But the show must go on.

    33. Re:Genesis! by PRMan · · Score: -1, Troll

      120 million years based on the strata layer it was found in and it's assumed age by evolutionists: "The sediment that became those rocks accumulated in calm waters on the floor of a lake or a lagoon sometime between 113 million and 126 million years ago, he notes." This fossil, like most others, was never actually tested for age at all.

      Test it with a hard test like carbon-14 and it will come out less than 50,000 years old. There are over 85 ways to test age but evolutionists consistently only use 3, the most common being strata layer which is assumed to begin with.

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    34. Re:Genesis! by PRMan · · Score: 1

      Actually, the creationist position would be that the dragon most likely died during the flood about 4,400 years ago.

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    35. Re:Genesis! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Option 1 (the sarcastic "love"):
      This is an example of a transitional species the existence of which evolutionary theory predicted before it was discovered to exist (something "creationists" have been challenging scientists to produce) point awarded to Science.

      Option 2 (the literal "love"):
      This is clearly the actual snake that tempted Eve and got all snakes' leg privileges revoked by God, therefore it's moral to hate gay people or something.

    36. Re:Genesis! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, no. How do you know if the guy you asked actually knows anything about the matter but is simply making shit up as he goes or reciting some half-remembered factoid he heard from an unknown source?

      You ask them to cite their source and continue doing so until you get to someone who's source is an experiment. Then you reproduce that experiment and see what happens. If your experiment shows results compatible with what they told you, you can conclude they're probably right.

      If they cannot cite their source or your reproduction of their experiment fails to reproduce the result they claimed you consider the information to be of questionable accuracy.

    37. Re:Genesis! by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      The stunning part is that a lot of scientists had conjectured that snakes evolved from aquatic precursors, whereas this specimen is clearly land based.

    38. Re:Genesis! by HiThere · · Score: 2

      Caution: Many of the experiments are only statistically reproducable. Many of them require that the experimenter be "skilled in the art" (and which art varies with the domain of the experiment).

      So it's not as simple as school books try to make it seem. Check out "search image" to see one of the potentially confounding problems.

      And this isn't even considering that some of the experiments are so exensive or so dangerous to perform that most people are prohibited from doing them.

      That said, science, when well done, produces reliable results...within its applicable domain. E.g., don't ask science for moral guidance, it can't provide it. What is can provide is a statistical expectation of what the results of a particular action are likely to be. You provide the moral judgement. And, unfortunately, people who become deeply enmeshed in science are as apt to ignore morality as those who become too deeply enmeshed in finance or politics.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    39. Re:Genesis! by HiThere · · Score: 1

      This depends extensively on the precise meaning you give to "religion". In my opinion a decent religion would not describe the events of the physical world, but only the relative moral values that should be assigned to them. This is not an "easy way out", because it's not a "way out" at all. It means that you don't assign moral values to events that are not part of social interactions. It also renders much of traditional religion at best irrelevant. And it means that theology is a proper subset of a union of sociology and psychology. Much of traditional religion can be seen as basically a social control mechanism...which is a description, not a value judgement. Promises and claims that are made which are unverifiable cannot be considered as a part of the universe considered by science, except in so far as those claims have physical results. Which is not a minor effect.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    40. Re:Genesis! by HiThere · · Score: 2

      If you take it as a compliment, that's fine. But you *do* need to be aware of the full significance of that "symbol". You may find partial enlightenment at the nearest meat packing plant. (You'd find more in raising sheep, but that takes a lot longer.)

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    41. Re:Genesis! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because now it's only a matter of time until they find a fossil snake with vocal cords, so the "talking snake" theory will be validated!

    42. Re:Genesis! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Spoken like someone who has never considered the attributes of his supposed God as a gestalt and noticed the contradictions and impossibilities therein...

    43. Re:Genesis! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You...you *do* know that radiocarbon dating is not used for anything much older than 50Kya, right...? Given how short the half-life of C14 is?

      Or do you prefer to wallow in your own ignorance like a toddler in a dirty diaper? Your own collection of Canaanite genocide manuals has a phrase that describes your kind: "as a dog returneth to its vomit, so the fool to his folly."

    44. Re:Genesis! by gstoddart · · Score: 2

      Listen ... we don't care about your creationist drivel or your superstitions, we believe in reality around here.

      Why don't look a the universe as it exists, and realize that if your god actually exists, he's a fuck of a lot more sophisticated and expansive than you drooling morons who need to believe the Earth is young.

      The Earth is old. The solar system is old. The universe is massive, old beyond imagining, vast beyond comprehension, and utterly amazing beyond belief. You have elements in your body which could only come into existence in stars which have already died, before our own sun existed, before the Earth existed, and long long long before your damned 50,000 years.

      The need to squish reality into matching the literal interpretation of your superstitions is your problem, because your wee-little evolved-from-monkey brain refuses to see the world as it is, and insist on some trite explanation whipped up in a way suitable to explain to bronze age people ... and borrowed from what you'd call heathens and pagans from well before that.

      Any god which can create the vast and awesome universe we live in would be rolling his eyes at your need to deny physical reality to fit your fairy tales.

      But the specific need to take the bible as a literal, and accurate representation of reality instead a means of explaining stuff to primitive people is pathetic.

      You do god a disservice by treating him as being as as small and tiny as your world view. Because you're obsessed with denying reality, instead of seeing it.

      There is no "science" in this denial of fossils, evolution or any of this ... this is nothing but use stupid tricks to deny reality to match your fables, instead of realizing your fables are metaphor.

      Any god who wanted people to do that would have to be a moron. And if he doesn't like it, he can take it up with me himself.

      But stop pretending to use science to defend creationism. Because that's just sophistry to support your own delusional take on reality.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    45. Re:Genesis! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's a cute bit of rhetoric, but Jastrow doesn't really have a point except that astronomers concluded that the universe had a beginning, which many religious creation myths agree with. The difference is observation, theory, and experimentation are much more reliable than faith.

    46. Re:Genesis! by ultranova · · Score: 1

      And, unfortunately, people who become deeply enmeshed in science are as apt to ignore morality as those who become too deeply enmeshed in finance or politics.

      I don't think it's so much a matter of ignoring morality as losing perspective: you become so focused on a small portion of the world that you lose sight of anything beyond. And it happens to everyone to some extent, finance and politics just happen to be high-power positions which shield you from corrective feedback.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    47. Re:Genesis! by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      The main difference is that you can back up facts. They are testable. Gravity is easy to test. Take something into your hand. Let go while it's not in a stable connection to the ground (directly or by proxy). It will, provided the item you are holding is heavier than air, accelerate towards the earth. What you observed there was the effect of gravity working on the item.

      It is universally valid and works here as well as it does on the moon (with the relevant changes due to the different mass) and anywhere else in the universe. Not because we made it up and thought it would be neat if we didn't have to jump after every teacup that we thoughtlessly put into the middle of air and that happened to float away, but because it is one of the fundamental laws of the universe.

      Unlike some God, the universe would really literally not exist without it.

      Gravity works with or without my consent, whether I choose to believe in it or not. I cannot wish it away, despite my best attempts at flying I am returning faithfully to the earth every time I jump into the air.

      God only exists if you want him to.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    48. Re:Genesis! by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      This was of course a highly simplified example. In that I postulated that the person asked does actually know.

      Science also is no "god". It requires not your faith. Quite the opposite, it requires your doubt. Science (at least the kind that deserves the name) is the very anathema of a god. It is testable. Something gods are by the very definition thereof not. Science offers its findings in such a way that you are able (time, knowledge and, at least today, availability of technology permitting) to recreate its findings, test its veracity and, if you find contradictions, alter the knowledge (we prefer to call it a theory, though the word has been abused to the point where some people today think it means something like "something we made up 'cause we felt like it").

      That's something you can't do with a god. Gods have by their very definition the authority on the subjects they are gods in. In the case of the Christian god, being a monotheistic religion, he's the authority in everything. You cannot falsify a god without reducing him to absurdity. Because if a "mere human" shows that a god erred, well, it removes the god from its status.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    49. Re:Genesis! by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Science cannot answer moral questions because that's not what science is about. Science asks "how". Not "why". "Why" is the domain of philosophy and religion.

      Science can answer you how the world came into existence. But not why. It has no answer for the purpose of the universe. If you want an answer to this, religion may well be the answer.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    50. Re:Genesis! by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Believing may lead to more nasty side effects due to some god's arbitrary rules. Granted. But the mere fact of believing something is heaps easier than trying to know.

      Would it really be the first time that the "easy way out" eventually led to having to spend way more in the long run?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    51. Re:Genesis! by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      Well, religion of course needs to explain the world. That's a necessity. How am I supposed to make people believe in my god if I give them no good reason to do so?

      Imagine yourself a few 1000 years ago. The world is a strange and mostly unpredictable place. Without rhyme and reason things happen around you. The seasons change, rain happens or it doesn't, seemingly at random. Storms and hail, pests eat and kill your crops, and you're totally powerless against it all.

      People don't like that. People like to be in control of their life. In come the gods. Putting the gods in charge and you praying to them gives you control. By proxy, granted, and not really, but at least it makes you feel like you can somehow influence what you cannot control.

      A religion that doesn't offer this will not exist for long. With passing time you can of course go more onto the metaphysical level and concentrate more on things like afterlife and morality, especially once science pushed your gods out of their original domain, i.e. controlling what can't be controlled (and what can now be controlled, to some degree), but that's where gods come from.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    52. Re:Genesis! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      Enough drunk posting, faggot bitch. Now that you're starting to sober up go and buy your fucking iPhone with the rest of your iFaggot friends and take another dick in the ass. Apple queer faggot.

    53. Re:Genesis! by HiThere · · Score: 2

      You are talking about one part of religion, and considering it as if it were the whole. And the part that you are considering is the most dubious part.

      I, personally, happen to be a sort of gnostic, though not a gnostic christian. It *is* possible to have direct experience of the holy, which one and easily interpret as superhuman, though I consider that a mistake. I feel the the "gods" are a subset of the Jungian archetypes. Do *NOT* make the mistake of thinking that this renders them ineffective. They are the shared substratum of (almost) all humans. And they act powerfully, though indirectly, in the physical world because of that. Their actions are normally invisible because we don't notice them, not because they aren't present. Without the gods no machine would be built, and no language would be possible. Normally we call the "gods" instinct, if we notice them, but that badly downplays how powerfully they act. We don't tend to notice them because they are almost universal among humans. We are more likely to notice their absence, which we give names to like "sociopath", or "autistic". The eruption of a god into a full encounter with consciousness is quite rare, and generally needs to be managed with great care. It can also be quite destructive, so one should usually avoid this. Of course, it's more destructive if you don't notice that it's happening, and also if you have a great deal of trust in them. Be warned: The gods make mistakes. We do not live in the environment that we evolved for, so even when they act in ways that would be appropriate in that environment, it may be mistaken...and they would even make mistakes in their evolved environment.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    54. Re:Genesis! by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      and probably this is not a snake but a specimen from some extinct group.

      One of the specific characteristics that they use to deduce that this is more closely related to modern snakes than to an other group is that the body (between the pelvic and pectoral girdles) is considerably elongated compared to other vertebrates. This lengthening is achieved by increasing the number of vertebrae and ribs, not by lengthening the vertebrae (which is the strategy that giraffes use, for example). There is also a hint (though it is admittedly unclear and the specimen isn't well enough preserved to tell) that the ventral surface of the body (i.e. the belly) has a single scale running across the full width.

      Snake-y enough for you?

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    55. Re:Genesis! by RockDoctor · · Score: 1
      The controversy isn't about the fossil ; it's about the origin of the fossil.

      The lithology of the encasing rock and age of the specimen (the report I had didn't go into details ; I'd assume micropalaeontology - it usually is) suggests that the specimen came from the Crato formation of Brazil. But Brazil has had a blanket ban on export of fossils since the 1940s. So, how did the fossil get to appear in a small museum in southern Germany? (By coincidence, I've actually been to that museum.)

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    56. Re:Genesis! by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      What a beautiful display of fallacies... I'll have whatever you're smoking! Must be fun.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    57. Re:Genesis! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So until humans had the ability to see and test for bacteria and other micro-organisms they didn't exist?

      I don't think that being "testable" is a criteria for making something factual or a determination of it's existence. There are probably other things science will eventually discover once we discover how to see it or test it, but that doesn't negate it's actual factual existence now.

    58. Re:Genesis! by TemporalBeing · · Score: 1

      Science also is no "god". It requires not your faith. Quite the opposite, it requires your doubt. Science (at least the kind that deserves the name) is the very anathema of a god. It is testable

      Devil's Advocate: Much of evolution, especially around the "origin of species" is completely untestable and 100% reliant on having "faith" in science.

      --
      Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away. - Elvis Presley (source: imdb.com)
    59. Re:Genesis! by TemporalBeing · · Score: 1

      "Christianity" in the US is nothing but a cult that rejects science, worships guns and war and is an anti-sex death cult.

      Don't know which "christians" you know...but that's certainly not true.

      --
      Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away. - Elvis Presley (source: imdb.com)
    60. Re:Genesis! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except that you're expecting police to act like a judge in a very difficult, legally debatable issue that could go either way in court.

      You people are pathetic losers, believing in a pathetic interpretation of a pathetic god.

      You have but one insult, that of being a faggot, which you feel the need to lash out with over the shame of being ass-fucked by your priest/minister/shaman.

      I bet you moan sweetly when you take it up the ass, as you imagine the sweet feeling of the apostles taking it up the ass from Jesus.

      Blasphemy, bitches ... because the god you believe in is a punk faggot bitch, just like you.

      Go fuck your mother.

    61. Re:Genesis! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anagenesis and cladogenesis are both based on solid science. The history of phylogenesis is a logical extrapolation from that, since no human was around to see it, but it's entirely consistent with the fossil record, comparative anatomy and genetics.

  2. 4 Legged Snake by StrangeBrew · · Score: 4, Funny

    The snake also recently stated that POW's are exempt from War Hero status.

    1. Re: 4 Legged Snake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      I agree, you can be a war veteran and a prisoner of war but you can not be a war 'hero' if all you did was sit in jail... and this is what John McCain ddid for almost the whole war. Are we trying to say that if he wasn't shot down he would've defeated the Vietnamese army with his plane alone?

    2. Re: 4 Legged Snake by Fire_Wraith · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Heroism takes many forms.

      McCain was the son of a high ranking Admiral, and a potentially valuable political pawn for the North Vietnamese. They offered him all sorts of inducements, nice treatment, etc, if he'd make statements for them. He refused, and they tortured him instead, to the point that he can't even raise his arms above his shoulders today.

      They offered to release him early, ahead of his fellow prisoners, and he refused, insisting that all previous prisoners be released first (according to military rules), even though that meant he'd be enduring more of that hellhole.

      Heroism isn't just about standing up with a machine gun on each arm and shooting up the enemy single-handedly.

    3. Re:4 Legged Snake by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 1

      But did it have any opinions on the idea that love can bloom on the battlefield?

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
    4. Re: 4 Legged Snake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Concur. Can't fucking stand the guy's politics, but I respect the guy's strength here. Yes, others in his position of less status might have been outright killed, and maybe we wouldn't have known about their bravery, but heroism isn't about putting some men above others - it's about seeing the evidenced behaviour of some men and using that behaviour as an example to follow.

    5. Re:4 Legged Snake by operagost · · Score: 1

      Trump has four legs?

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    6. Re:4 Legged Snake by Fire_Wraith · · Score: 1

      Of course. He's a lizard, after all. And this is why people vote for a lizard - because if they don't, the wrong lizard might get elected.

    7. Re:4 Legged Snake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The snake also recently stated that POW's are exempt from War Hero status.

      Oh no, the snake they found had twice the legs and half the a** holes as the one you are talking about..

    8. Re:4 Legged Snake by StrangeBrew · · Score: 1

      Yes, yes he does. You are aware that 'number of legs' is synonymous to 'number of appendages' when talking about broad anatomical classification of creatures, right? Even the riddle of the Sphinx suggests that millennia old cultures were able to grasp this concept.

    9. Re: 4 Legged Snake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      I agree, you can be a war veteran and a prisoner of war but you can not be a war 'hero' if all you did was sit in jail... and this is what John McCain ddid for almost the whole war. Are we trying to say that if he wasn't shot down he would've defeated the Vietnamese army with his plane alone?

      If you take the approach that (bravery && selflessness) != heroism, then you're right. He didn't jump out of a chopper and machine-gun down a platoon of the enemy. But having read and heard what Vietnam era prisionors went through, I have the highest admiration for anyone who lived through it. The one fact that he refused to be freed (because his father was an admiral) unless everyone captured before him was release is a remarkable display of selflessness.

      For that, he is a hero.

    10. Re: 4 Legged Snake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I am willing to bet that you have never worn the uniform, and have no idea what his service record actually reflects.

      I have worn the uniform and I know that McCain stood up for the other POWs and was a leader, and that doesn't even include his service before he was shot down.

      Frankly I don't like alot of his politics. I respect the man though.

    11. Re:4 Legged Snake by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure his hair once did.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    12. Re: 4 Legged Snake by oldmac31310 · · Score: 1, Troll

      Actually, I view McCain as a war criminal.

      --
      http://www.acetonestudio.com
    13. Re: 4 Legged Snake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And how shall we judge you?

    14. Re: 4 Legged Snake by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      Those are not mutually exclusive things. Especially when you're talking about two words four decades apart.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    15. Re:4 Legged Snake by operagost · · Score: 1

      So a chicken also has four legs. Got it.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    16. Re: 4 Legged Snake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Personal definition - Hero:
      One that works toward the benefit of others at great risk/cost to themselves.

      Can't stand McCain's pro-war mantra, but he definitely qualifies as a hero in my book.

    17. Re:4 Legged Snake by StrangeBrew · · Score: 1

      Yes, and unless you're a creationist, you'll be able to research the evolution of the modern wing from the feathered, clawed, four legged body of its ancestors.

    18. Re: 4 Legged Snake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You sure have posted a lot as AC. Must have taken a long time and added nothing....so good on you?

    19. Re: 4 Legged Snake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh look, a murican worshipping those fucking war criminals they call solders. A cliché if I ever saw one.

    20. Re:4 Legged Snake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Take me to your lizard.

    21. Re: 4 Legged Snake by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Well, I'm pretty sure Trump doesn't have any "hero" to his name at all and is in no position to start yet another swiftboating attack on a competitor.

      Next up, idiots complain about people who get Purple Heart medals - after all they didn't do anything except fail to get out of the way the bullets, and they'd rather see heros who didn't get shot and who wore their body armor correctly.

      The whole point of the "hero" thing is not that they went and did some amazing superhuman feat, but that they went in the first place. You don't have to approve of the wars but the soldiers have put their lives on the line in order to defend others and that gives them hero status all by itself. There aren't a lot of things I agree with McCain about, but if I ever see him I'll give him a salute first thing.

      I may be a libtard peacenik deskbound civvie, but if We The People are going to send out soldiers on our behalf then We The People should respect that and support them, no matter what some blowhard draft dodger says in his attack campaign.

    22. Re:4 Legged Snake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      GMO chicken does. Just ask KFC why they took 'chicken' out of their name!

    23. Re: 4 Legged Snake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, look: an eurotrash nazi pedo. Have you harassed your daily quota of Jews and kissed Muslim ass, my brownshirted aryan friend?

    24. Re: 4 Legged Snake by ebvwfbw · · Score: 0

      Actually, I view McCain as a war criminal.

      It's not nice to leave us hanging like that. Way off topic from the snake, however could you tell us why you think that? I don't recall seeing anything about his war record that would make me think that. While he was a pilot off the the O?

  3. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  4. "Ignites Controversy" . . . ? by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 5, Funny

    So it could breathe fire, as well? It sounds like they have not found a snake, but a fire-breathing dragon!

    --
    Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    1. Re:"Ignites Controversy" . . . ? by PRMan · · Score: 1

      He doesn't have the correct head cavity for breathing fire.

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
  5. Small little feller by C0R1D4N · · Score: 1

    Surprised it wasn't classified as a skink though I'm more of a mammal enthusiast than a reptile one. Either way I'm curious if 20cm is its full grown size or if it is a baby dragon.

    1. Re:Small little feller by Jesrad · · Score: 1

      And I'm not surprised, considering how full of holes and lapses taxonomy is. It's pretty much a pseudoscience as it stands so far. We've been trying to put every critter into a single, discrete box called "species" and arranging those in ways that simply won't fit with the facts. Which order do protoctists really belong to ? Are euglenids plant or animal ? Are myxomycetes fungus or protoctists ? What about racoon dogs, cynogales, etc. ?

      Phylogenetic "trees" should really be loose hypergraphs with lots and lots of cycles and a wide circumference.

      --
      Maybe we deserve this world ?
  6. Thought to have come from Brazil? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So wait they don't know where it could have come from? So some person could have made this in his backyard? Then this part don't help "The fossil had resided in a private collection for several decades....stumbled across the specimen during a field trip with students to Museum Solnhofen in Germany." So this thing has been sitting in Germany in a collection? Sounds like others have seen this in the past and no one said anything until now? Sorry this sounds like a BS story.

    1. Re:Thought to have come from Brazil? by spacial · · Score: 2

      The site in Brazil (between 3 states) is know for it's type of rocks and a place to steal fossils. :)

    2. Re:Thought to have come from Brazil? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      RTFA. (Yeah, I know, this is /. )

      The limestone the fossil is embedded in, and the coloring of the fossil, are indicative of northern Brazil. Apparently either the original collector, or the owner of the private collection the fossil used to be in, didn't care to document the provenance (when/where found, under what circumstances) of the fossil, diminishing its scientific value. (This is why professional paleontologists and archeologists get pissed off at (most) amateur collectors. Some amateurs do a fine job, but with most it's like trashing a crime scene before the forensics guys show up. Less of a concern with dime-a-dozen invertebrate fossils.)

      If it was collected post-1942 (when it became illegal to export fossils from Brazil), that may explain the lack of documentation -- without which it's hard to prove that it was an illegal export.

  7. Yes, but as a snake in the GRASS... by davidwr · · Score: 0

    ... does it run [on] Linux?

    Oh wait, I'm thinking of that other snake.

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
  8. CLONE IT! by thedarb · · Score: 2

    Need to know if it can talk!

    --
    This sig intentionally left blank.
    1. Re:CLONE IT! by nnet · · Score: 1

      It can! And it said its name is Siri!

    2. Re:CLONE IT! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Of course. And it was discovered next to a half-eaten apple core.

    3. Re:CLONE IT! by PRMan · · Score: 1

      The Garden of Eden is in Iraq, not Brazil...

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    4. Re:CLONE IT! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, they found it, then? Great!

      I thought it was in Azerbaijan. Or Atlantis. Or on the moon.

  9. It's the missing slink! by rgbatduke · · Score: 4, Funny

    Sorry, I had to do that one.

    --
    Even when the experts all agree, they may well be mistaken. --- Bertrand Russell.
  10. Clickbait by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

    Four-legged Snake Fossil Interests Scientists, Ignites Scientific Interest

    FTFY.

    --
    systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
  11. I stopped reading at by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    "120-or-so-million-year-old". Anything past 100 000 years is nothing but wild speculation, among other things due the complete lack of knowledge about factors that will affect carbon dating. Going past 100 000 years, and your're doing nothing but carbon-schmarbon dating.

    1. Re:I stopped reading at by tompaulco · · Score: 0

      "120-or-so-million-year-old". Anything past 100 000 years is nothing but wild speculation, among other things due the complete lack of knowledge about factors that will affect carbon dating. Going past 100 000 years, and your're doing nothing but carbon-schmarbon dating.

      No, no, you see we have always known the exact quantity of Carbon-14 in the atmosphere and therefore Carbon dating is extremely reliable. The fact that we are now changing the percentage of C14 in the air and worried that C14 dating will not work reliably because we don't know the proper percentages of C14 coexists perfectly with us knowing the exact quantity of C14 150 million years ago.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    2. Re:I stopped reading at by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nobody carbon dates fossils, idiot.

      They use longer-lived isotope ratios, like uranium-lead, samarium-neodymium, potassium-argon, etc, among other (non-radiometric) methods.

    3. Re:I stopped reading at by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With C14 halving every 5730 years, 120 My means 21000 halving steps. How many atoms of C14 are left to measure?

    4. Re:I stopped reading at by bobbied · · Score: 1

      Oh, so they date the sand part of the sediment that was made into sedimentary rocks and consider THAT the age of the fossil?

      You do realize that the elements you mention are pretty much not part of the fossil, but part of the substrate which contains the fossil. What you are suggesting they are doing is going to a wall built yesterday and claiming it's 100 years old because of the age of the barn wood that the wall was covered in.

      I don't think the process of dating fossils is done that way... Last I heard they go to the geologists and ask them how old the rocks are.... Of course the question then becomes how the geologists know how old the rocks are.... I sure hope they don't go ask the biologists to date the fossils they see...

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    5. Re:I stopped reading at by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      > among other things due to my complete lack of knowledge about factors that will affect carbon dating.

      There, FTFY. HTH.

    6. Re:I stopped reading at by SuricouRaven · · Score: 4, Informative

      Carbon dating is useless on fossils. Firstly because they are far too old for the ratio to be measurable, and secondly because they don't actually contain any carbon of atmospheric origin to date.

      There are other forms of dating used for fossils though.

    7. Re:I stopped reading at by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It doesn't matter. The "knowledge" of geological processes at that amount of time back is just an orgy in extrapolation and crazy speculation, period.

    8. Re:I stopped reading at by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You get their point, dick-wad. There is no definitive knowledge of geological and other processes that span this far back. We simply can't date these things, and the current "knowledge" is just theory, mindless extrapolation and guess-work after doing blatant assumptions about the history of the planet.

    9. Re:I stopped reading at by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, you're saying the creationists could in theory be right?

    10. Re:I stopped reading at by TeknoHog · · Score: 2

      There are other forms of dating used for fossils though.

      And that's how I met your mother.

      --
      Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
    11. Re:I stopped reading at by Anonymous+Cow+Ward · · Score: 2

      Carbon dating isn't used for things older than about 100,000 years. Anything older than that uses other radioisotypes to determine age, which don't vary with atmospheric composition.

      --
      Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
    12. Re:I stopped reading at by zlives · · Score: 1

      no

    13. Re:I stopped reading at by PRMan · · Score: 2

      Actually, that's incorrect.

      http://newgeology.us/presentation48.html

      All fossils date less than 50,000 years. This is not a problem for creationists, but it makes evolutionists uncomfortable so they don't do it.

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    14. Re:I stopped reading at by PRMan · · Score: 1

      But not because they don't contain Carbon-14. Everything contains Carbon-14 and most fossils date to around 25,000-30,000 years ago if you Carbon-14 date them.

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    15. Re:I stopped reading at by PRMan · · Score: 1

      Yep. This is EXACTLY how they date fossils 90+% of the time. And you believe it as if they did a test or something actually scientific.

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    16. Re:I stopped reading at by PRMan · · Score: 1

      Actually, this is a more correct statement than most people make on this subject. Both creationists and evolutionists have made wild guesses in the past that have turned out to be absolutely false. The lack of hard scientific data makes this field less scientific than most people realize.

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    17. Re:I stopped reading at by SuricouRaven · · Score: 3, Interesting

      According to a paper which failed peer review.

    18. Re:I stopped reading at by Anonymous+Cow+Ward · · Score: 1

      Well, after it's been in the ground long enough, it doesn't contain carbon-14 any more, because it decayed to nitrogen. If you use carbon dating on those, there isn't enough left to get an accurate reading, which is exactly what you'd expect to happen.

      --
      Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
    19. Re:I stopped reading at by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It isn't. And to understand why it isn't, you'd have to actually study the subject. Which you won't.

    20. Re:I stopped reading at by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, we can date them. There is extrapolation and assumptions, but it is NOT mindless or guess-work. All the assumptions are well understood, and errors can be corrected for.

      I recommend you read MacDougall's Nature's Clocks for a broad overview of how the process works.

  12. Round these parts we call them lizards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mister Mojo Rising

  13. It was stolen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This fossil was stolen..
    [pt-br] http://noticias.uol.com.br/cie...

    1. Re:It was stolen by spacial · · Score: 1

      yep

  14. misread the headline by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 2

    I glanced through the above story about Hillary and misread the title of this story as "Four legged Senate fossil..." but then I remembered that Stromberg Thurmond died a few years back.

  15. Nor the first mission [Re: 4 Legged Snake] by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    I agree, you can be a war veteran and a prisoner of war but you can not be a war 'hero' if all you did was sit in jail... and this is what John McCain ddid for almost the whole war.

    Uh, you are aware that he did do other things in the war, right? Sitting in jail (by which you mean, POW camp) is not "all" he did. It was his 23rd bombing mission, not his first, on which he was shot down. And that by this time he'd been awarded the Navy Commendation Medal and the Bronze Star.

    I'm no fan of McCain, but I don't like personal attacks. Criticize him for his politics, not his history.

  16. Creationists are mounting a proxy argument by frog_strat · · Score: 1

    On the surface it appears they are questioning cross-specie evolution and how amino acids starting forming proteins (presumably without any RNA / DNA). But it is really an argument toward theocracy and away from secular society. Good luck with that. One of their arguments again cross-specie evolution is the lack of transitional fossils. This may be determined to be such a fossil. I am no scientist, but every theory should be questioned, it is science.

    1. Re:Creationists are mounting a proxy argument by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      Most of their arguments are variations on a very simple form.
      1. I have identified an aspect of the evolutionary model which I find difficult to accept.
      2. Therefore God made all life six thousand years ago.

    2. Re:Creationists are mounting a proxy argument by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're confusing the standard atheist Straw Man with what theists actually think.

    3. Re:Creationists are mounting a proxy argument by brgj · · Score: 1

      And you are conflating all theists with creationists. This is pretty much boilerplate for creationists.

    4. Re:Creationists are mounting a proxy argument by PRMan · · Score: 1

      In that case, you should be happy that creationists are questioning everything. In fact, it sounds like you would favor any repeatable scientific experiments they can perform should be taught in school.

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    5. Re:Creationists are mounting a proxy argument by PRMan · · Score: 1

      Nice try. Thanks for playing. But instead of straw men that they don't actually believe in, here is their own statement of their top 10 beliefs about creation:

      https://answersingenesis.org/evidence-for-creation/the-10-best-evidences-from-science-that-confirm-a-young-earth/

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    6. Re:Creationists are mounting a proxy argument by frog_strat · · Score: 1

      A friend of mine is a physics professor. He is not a Creationist (doesn't believe in 4-10k year old earth). But he is an intelligent design proponent (he's not sure about cross-phyla evolution). He thinks there might be an important ingredient we are not aware of that got the whole thing started. Like an extra-terrestrial race like some Sumerian texts imply. I listen to all these ideas. I really don't think there is an alternative to the general evolutionary theory. But sure, pieces of it might be problematic like my friend says. Above all, I try not to embrace anything in a dogmatic way. Let's see what the evidence says. Of course none of this address the ontological question of how it all got started or where the laws of nature came from, etc

    7. Re:Creationists are mounting a proxy argument by SuricouRaven · · Score: 2

      Every one of which is just a more specific case of the general outline I gave above. I've heard them all before - they all involve some high-school science which, interpreted simplistically, seems to suggest a young earth. The carbon dating of diamonds or oil, for example. If you're only working with high-school physics, that seems a certain proof of a young earth - because at that level you only need be concerned with carbon isotopes, but back in the complexities of the real world carbon dating for very old samples cannot overcome the interference of other radioisotopes - mostly potassium-40. The SNR is just too low, so you end up with a reading at around the maximum age of your equipment sensitivity - which any operator would recognize as a sign that the sample cannot be dated.

  17. Prove it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's based on the same speculation as in the English article. It looks like it came from Brazil. It's been illegal to export fossils from Brazil since 1942. Therefore it may be an illegal export (or not, depending on when it was found/exported).

    Which is not the same thing as stolen. Is there a record in Brazil of this fossil having been found and then going missing? Did somebody sneak into a known dig site in the dead of night and spirit this fossil away?

    Hell, maybe somebody carefully faked this fossil (a la Piltdown Man) and then loaned it to the museum hoping it would be discovered by some curious paleontologist.

  18. Biznat3h by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    are incompatOible llok at your soft,

  19. We've finally found... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...the missing link in the evolution of teatards!

  20. Par for the course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    This is Slashdot. Science is only questionable when it agrees with the bible.

    Genesis 3:4, for those wondering what the sequence specifics are that are the current cause for rejecting science, if necessary.

    1. Re:Par for the course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Correction: Make that Genesis 3:14.

    2. Re:Par for the course by PRMan · · Score: 1

      Science is questionable when the science actually proves a young earth instead of an old one.

      Science is questionable when political votes are taken to decide things like the death of the dinosaurs or the Oort Cloud, instead of additional evidence.

      Science is questionable when people's repeatable experiments are excluded from the conversation because of who they are rather than the repeatability and quality of the experiments themselves.

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
  21. Private collection, illegal mining... by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1
    The controversy does not seem to be related to evolution or anything about it. Looks like the specimen is in some private collection and it has only sketchy notes about the location of the find. Some suspicion that it was mined illegally and the real source location is obscured, either to avoid the law or to hide it from other fossil seekers. Thus dating of the fossil is confused and there is some speculation.

    Title seems to be simple click bait meant to attract creationists and their opponents.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
  22. image in the article by argStyopa · · Score: 1

    I like how it's hugging the little furry mammal in the artist's conception. It's representative of the long bond of love and friendship that exists between us and our reptilian friends.

    --
    -Styopa
  23. mod 0p by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    not 6oing To play

  24. Not a snake by barbariccow · · Score: 1

    You mean DRAGON!!!!!!

    1. Re:Not a snake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Name an animal that we eat, that doesn't eat us? DRAGON!!!!!!

    2. Re:Not a snake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Isn't a four-legged snake a lizard?

  25. Let me know... by hyades1 · · Score: 1

    ...when they find one with a voice box. ;-)

    --
    I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
    1. Re:Let me know... by PRMan · · Score: 1

      Just like Balaam's donkey had a voice box? Or can a spirit possess an animal and cause it to speak?

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
  26. In other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dozens of living two-legged snakes discovered in Washington, D.C.

  27. Not convinced by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1

    Sure they have something. We don't know what it is. Since it's a fossil we don't know how it happened. Could it be something else happened to land on it after death or was below it before death? We don't know. Show me more with the bone structures in the same place. Then we'll have something. Now it's just a curiosity. Need more proof.