Evolutionary biology and Genesis 3:14 agree: the snake lost its legs, and it was not a good thing

This blogger (evangelical Christian) and this blogger (Jewish) argue, each in their own way, for the compatibility of recent findings in the field of evolutionary biology with the text of Genesis 3:14. In short, there is evidence to the effect that the (proto-) snake lost its legs about 140 million years ago, and that, furthermore, the loss was a detrimental evolutionary change. The relevant article in JPost is reproduced below.

For a summary of the relevant research written with non-biologists in mind, see PZ Myers here. Unfortunately, Myers concentrates on the primary topic of the just-published research paper (referenced there, purchasable here), and therefore does not discuss the loss of legs.

The broad outline of Genesis 1 and a detail or two in Genesis 3:14 are compatible with the theory of evolution, but only at a relatively high level of interpretative abstraction. A curious fact: there are no other extant Ancient Eastern creation stories with anything like the same degree of prima facie congruence with the understanding of the origins of the universe and the evolution of life current in contemporary science.

On the other hand, there are other details in Genesis 1-3 which are incompatible with what we know in terms of the physical sciences, anthropology, and geography. Given the literary genres Gen 1-3 instantiate, this is only to be expected.

The congruities give pause for thought, not the incongruities. I know of no rational explanation for the former.

Evolution of a slither - study tracks snake’s loss of legs

By JUDY SIEGEL-ITZKOVICH

The Book of Genesis reports that the serpent who persuaded Eve to tempt Adam was cursed by God with the loss of its limbs: “Upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life.”

Now 16 researchers from universities and research institutes in four countries - including Haifa’s Technion-Israel Institute of Technology - have found that the world’s snake species had indeed evolved from four-legged lizard-like creatures some 140 million years ago.

Dr. Ram Reshef of the Technion’s biology faculty worked with scientists from Leiden University in the Netherlands, Whitman College in the US and the University of South Australia on a study entitled the “Evolutionary origin and development of snake fangs” which recently appeared in the journal Nature. In the extremely technical submission, the scientists show how the front legs gradually disappeared, followed by the disappearance of the hind legs, forcing the creature to slither on its belly.

In some snake species, an undeveloped thigh bone can still be found. The disappearance of the limbs caused the snakes’ bodies to sprout fangs and glands, some of which produce toxic venom, to protect the animal and improve its hunting abilities.

Reshef and his colleagues noted that as snakes evolved into limbless creatures, their bodies lengthened and they gained access to subterranean “niches” of sustenance not utilized by other animals. But the loss of their limbs made it very difficult for snakes to catch prey and hold it in their mouths.

The researchers (who do not mention the Bible’s account of the serpent in the Garden of Eden) said their studies indicated that snakes had undergone a large number of “dramatic” evolutionary changes. A relatively large number of skull bones had detached themselves from the bones covering the brain, making the mouth much more flexible. The release of a bone connecting the skull bones and the lower jawbones had allowed the jaws to open much wider and the snakes to swallow whole a variety of larger prey - sometimes animals bigger than the snakes themselves.

The more advanced snake species are able to kill their prey by squeezing them with their massive trunk muscles. As the species evolved, some developed a special gland in the back part of the upper jaw that produced venom to ease the process of capturing and consuming their victims.

The Nature article ends a long debate by scientists on the source of fangs in advanced species such as rattlesnakes, pythons and cobras. Reshef contributed to this understanding his discoveries on the embryonic development of snake species native to this region and the SHH gene, which expresses itself in the development of fangs. He discovered that the fangs in snakes with poisonous venom originate in the back part of the maxillary teeth. Although they originally were of equal size, about 60 million years ago they broke into two regions, with some turning into large fangs. The venom, consisting of enzymes and toxins, flows through the fangs when the snake bites.

Comments

[James Pate]

There seems to be a broad-brush similarity between Genesis 1 and evolution, period. The water animals come first, then the land animals, and finally man. I'm not sure if that was intentional, but it's interesting.

[JohnFH]

That's what I was getting at, James.

Plus the "let there be light" at the beginning, the rough equivalent of the Big Bang. A water-covered earth yields dry land. The creation of plants is in the right relative temporal location. And so on.

Agnostics and atheists are often the first to point these parallels out. An ironic situation, if you ask me.

[James Pate]

I reread your post, and I have one question. You say:

"A curious fact: there are no other extant Ancient Eastern creation stories with anything like the same degree of prima facie congruence with the understanding of the origins of the universe and the evolution of life current in contemporary science."

But doesn't Enuma Elish have the same sort of order as Genesis?

[JohnFH]

I don't think so, James.

Enuma Elish is mostly blood and gore after all, theomachy and theogony. I just re-read the narrative at a very fast clip in Benjamin Foster's wonderful "Before the Muses" anthology, and did not notice an order of creation similar to the one in Genesis 1. Perhaps I missed something, but I don't think so.

There are, however, remarkably close parallels between Genesis 1-11 and Akkadian literature with respect to the Flood and its immediate aftermath.

[James Pate]

Hi John,

I admit there are differences. In Genesis 1, there's not much of a battle. But I think where some see parallels between the two has to do with the gods Marduk creates. He creates a water god before a land god. Eventually, he makes man to be a slave to the gods. Finally, he rests in his palace.

Here's a link:

meta-religion.com/World_Religions/Ancient_religions/Mesopotamia/genesis_and_enuma_elish_creation.htm

[JohnFH]

You certainly have touched on an interesting topic, James.

Suggested further reading: the bibliography under Translations and Literature in Foster's anthology, noted above. In particular, I would read everything you can on the subject written by w. G. Lambert, J. Bottero, D. O. Edzard, and V. Horowitz. Heidel's older monograph is out-dated, but still interesting.

In Enuma Elish, Marduk is the god who creates human kind, but not the god who creates the universe. "When no gods at all had been brought forth," Apsu (freshwater/ the freshwater god) and Tiamat (saltwater, the ocean/ the ocean god) "mingled their waters together." The theogonic/ cosmogonic process is thereby initiated.

Differences and interesting similarities with Gen 1:1-2 are evident, as I'm sure you will agree.