Coffee House Musings on Creationist Topic Proposals

Why would the snake need these stronger fangs when it was surviving with the fangs it already had?

Wait ... let me get this straight ... your explanation for how a snake's venom glands came to be connected to their hollow fangs is that some lucky snake just happened to be born that way?So that lucky snake's parents lacked any connection between gland and fangs and then ... poof! ... said lucky snake was born with it all magically connected up?If so ... wow ... that gives the story of the Tooth Fairy a whole new dimension.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

How can you call me a friend when you don't support me?

Found any whales with a fused sacrum yet? LOL!

Your fairy tales are getting funnier and funnier ... the snake had to evolve tougher fangs coz its prey was evolving tougher skin? I love it!Why then didn't the snake simply choose prey with softer skin?Incidentally, I never asked about how a snake evolved stronger fangs ... my query was about the evolution of hollow fangs.

So your best scientific explanation for how a venomous snake came to have hollow fangs is ... wait for it (drum roll) ... "billions of years done it"?

792/53 No one needs the theory of UCD to understand how viruses evolve and how they affect humans and other species. What crap. No scientific publication would describe the mechanisms of evolution as UCD, or vise-versa. And the theory of UCD can be defined without even mentioning the mechanisms of evolution.The mechanisms of evolution are indepedent from the theory of UCD ... the former exist regardless of the latter.You don't need the theory of UCD to understand and utilize the mechanisms of evolution.Medicine utilizes facts such the mechanisms of evolution, but medicine has no use for the theory of UCA.

Ol' misery guts.

I have considered your comments with an open and unprejudiced mind. My conclusion is that I have deemed them devoid of merit.

.... and then, children, something truly wonderful happened ... the Tooth Fairy came along, waved her magic wand and ... poof! ... all of a sudden the snake had hollow fangs! You haven't explained anything ... all you and xongsmith have done is make up fanciful stories plucked out of thin air. None of your fairy tales can be tested and are therefore worthless as science.But such is the wont of Darwinists ... they don't know what happened, so they invent imaginative bed-time stories and then delude themselves that their fables have got something to do with reality.
.

I was hoping you wouldn't mention the fact that I am, without any doubt at all , an idiot.

873 No, you weren't right ... you just happened to dream up a fairy tale bearing a slight resemblance to the fairy tale dreamed up in the article provided by Tangle.
To wit:
Snakes evolved venom fangs multiple times from wrinkles in their teeth | New ScientistAnd unlike said article, you made no attempt to explain the evolution of hollow fangs ... you simply attempted to explain stronger fangs.Incidentally, it never ceases to amaze me how credulous Darwinists are. Take said article, for example: Some space-cadet Darwinist scientists at a university concoct a weak, simplistic, far-fetched, untestable story about how hollow snake fangs might have evolved, and suddenly it's accepted as an established scientific fact by those gullible little children out there in Darwin World ... like you and Tangle.

In your Darwinist fantasy-world, what makes the deeper groove begin to "fold together"?

It never ceases to amaze me how credulous Darwinists are. Take the article you've offered here, for example: Some space-cadet Darwinist scientists at a university concoct a weak, simplistic, far-fetched, untestable story about how hollow snake fangs might have evolved, and suddenly it's accepted as an established scientific fact by all those gullible little children out there in Darwin World. Embarrassing.