MXWordNerd: Here's the original article that I posted.

The Riddle of the Snakes With Legs
A fossil snake with legs was found in 95 million-year-old deposits near Jerusalem.

Its sedimentary surroundings suggested a seafaring lifestyle for this ancient reptile, but its advanced anatomy prompted scientists to question the theory about the marine origin of snakes.

The intriguing species, named Haasiophis terrasanctus, was the second limbed snake to come from the site of Ein Yabrud, an ancient marine environment broadly similar to the still, coastal waters of today's Bahamian reef.

The first such species, Pachyrhachis problematicus, "played a pivotal role in a scenario that places the ancestor of snakes in the sea," scientists reported in the journal Science in March 2000.

"In support of Pachyrhachis' position at the base of the serpent family tree, some paleontologists have noted features in its skull that they believe single it out as a transitional link between mosasaurs—gigantic swimming lizards of the Cretaceous (144 to 65 million years ago)—and true snakes. This view contrasts dramatically with the traditional view of small terrestrial or burrowing lizards as snake ancestors," the researchers said.

A group of scientists, led by Olivier Rieppel of the Field Museum in Chicago and Eitan Tchernov of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, brought Haasiophis into the midst of the origins controversy after the fossil had spent years in nameless limbo in a museum drawer.

Their description of the extremely well-preserved fossil, along with an analysis of its evolutionary relationships, led the scientists to conclude that their new species was close kin to Pachyrhachis.

Their analysis also indicated, however, that the two snakes were not primitive ancestors, but advanced snakes similar to modern boas and pythons. This suggests that neither Pachyrhachis nor Haasiophis had anything to do with snake origins.

The finding undermined the theory that Pachyrhachis represented an evolutionary link between marine reptiles and true snakes.

Snakes like boas and pythons have a distinctively mobile skull structure that allows them to nearly unhinge their jaw in a formidable gape and "walk" their skull over their prey, dining on meals larger than the diameter of their own head.

The two species of fossil snakes from Ein Yabrud appeared to have skull architecture similar to these modern serpents. Previous studies of Pachyrhachis had concluded that the snake was incapable of such jaw flexibility, instead adopting a modified gape similar to that of the mosasaurs as an intermediate step between the rigid skull of lizards and the mobile skull of higher snakes.

"We went back and looked very carefully at the skulls of Pachyrhachis, Haasiophis, and lizards like mosasaurs, especially features like the braincase, the dentition, and the joint in the middle of the lower jaw," said Rieppel. "The better preservation of Haasiophis allowed us to use its anatomy as a guide, and gave us the background to see just how much these fossils looked like advanced snakes."

But a riddle remained: Why do these two snake species have hind limbs? If legs were the norm for snake ancestors, it would make sense to see the species' advanced anatomy as only superficially similar to more modern snakes.

On the other hand, the stubby limbs on the fossil snakes might represent an evolutionary reversal, where snakes with advanced skull design regain hind limbs that were lost or perhaps greatly reduced in their ancestors.

Rieppel and his colleagues counted the number of evolutionary steps involved in each possible scenario, and concluded that the redevelopment of limbs was a more likely story.

"We know of at least 62 lizard and snake lineages that have undergone some degree of limb reduction," Rieppel noted. "Since our fossil record of snakes is very poor, we can't exclude the possibility that limbs in snakes were lost not just once in the beginning, but several times throughout their history."

Rieppel said that it is difficult to tell how the legs themselves might have been used, since they are too small in relation to the animal's whole body to have any locomotor function.

Modern pythons have a rudimentary hind limb, usually little more than a "claw" of cartilage tipped with bone that they use during mating and occasional fighting, and it is possible that Haasiophis' leg served a similar purpose.

Source: American Association for the Advancement of Science

Each line of your post is in error nick. And a 5 letter insult? I am impressed! Your a big man now!
Diagnosis has a lot to do with more people dying per capita. Along with the things that Realitycheck posted. Have you ever heard the saying on the news when talking about a death and autopsy "The cause of death is unknown". Well, go back generations, or centuries and it is much more likely that this is going to be said, or things like "bad blood" are going to be the cause of death. Could any of these deaths possibibly have been from cancer? Even 5% maybe? If you are so niave to thing that diagnositics were the same centuries ago then you can live in your little fantasy world, I won't stop you.

Messenger: as relates to your 'refutation' of RC's post. As it concerns to physical labor, in the short run it makes you stronger. But doing heavy, physical labor all day does two things negative for us. One, it wears down our joints, especially knees, hips, and back. It also increases the risk of some type of serious injury. Then, with these weakened, and sometimes so weakened an painful joints that a person can no longer get exercise and keep healthy, they are more likely to to die from sickness. There you go, cause and EFFECT.

Nick, Einstein is not my hero. He was a great physicist, but in my opinion no where near the greatest. And how many times is it going to have to pointed out that Einstein did not believe in god? Those set of quotes that gmilan posted is at least the second time they have been posted after your claim that Einstein believed in god. Are you that ignorant, or that much of a liar? Or are you just going to run and not respond to this post like you have done everytime.

Also, lets say, for arguments sake, that Einstein did believe in god. He is famous because he was a great PHYSICIST, not a great philosopher, or religious leader. His personal view on god is not some type of authority on what people should believe. If Einstein said "there is no god, and anyone who believes in god is stupid" would that make you stop believing? I doubt it? And why, because he is NO expert on religion.