Quote:

Primitive snakes — such as, pythons and boa constrictors — do have nub-like legs beneath their skins and tiny, half-inch claws that protrude out above the nubs but nestle close to their bellies near the anus. Actually, even the nubs are not legs but rather a remnant of upper-leg (thigh or femur) bones. The males still use the spurs — but only during courtship and fighting — not to walk. No other snakes have legs.



All snake species have those leg nubs during their embryonal phase. They just disappear then, so snakes normally don't have legs. Only the oldest snakes species - pythons and boas, the closest to their evolutionary ancestors - keep the legs nubs during their whole life.

Seems pretty good evidence of evolution to me.

Another transient fossil that sheds some light on snake evolution:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/04/19/fossil.snake.ap/index.html?section=cnn_space


- The mutation question ---

Evolution requires mutations and natural selection. You admit that natural selection and small mutations exist, but deny the possibility of large mutations. The reason you give is that selection and small mutations can be directly observed, while large mutations can not be directly observed in our life time.

The first logical flaw is that you assume that something you can't observe doesn't exist. However you can't observe single quarks either and nevertheless all physicists agree that quarks exist.

The second logical flaw is that you seem to assume mutations can only remove information from the DNA, and not add information. However a mutation at first is just a random modification of the DNA. Either by removing or adding DNA parts - copies from the same DNA or from foreign DNA - or by directly modifying DNA sequences. This can add information to the DNA, or remove it. Both is possible. Only the outcome decides whether it's a good mutation or a bad one.

As you can imagine when parts of some code are randomly shuffled or changed, most mutations are bad. But probability dictates that there must also be good mutations, although less frequent. The existence of good mutations is not a matter of opinion, but follows from the laws of logic and mathematics.


- The faith question ---

Actually it's very simple.

A) Religious people can believe in evolution.
B) Religious people can believe in creationism.
C) Non-religious people can believe in evolution.
D) Non-religious people can't believe in creationism.

Conclusion: Creationism requires faith (religion), evolution doesn't.