# Does science support the biblical "snakes once had feet" story? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [January 7, 2004, 11:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-science-support-the-biblical-snakes-once-had-feet-story/223303 "2004-01-07T23:04:21Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Sarah23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/50afbb/32.png) [@Sarah23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sarah23)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2004, 11:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-science-support-the-biblical-snakes-once-had-feet-story/223303/1 "2004-01-07T23:04:21Z")
I know there are many stories in the Bible that don’t jive with science and I was just wondering if this was one of those stories. TIA. : ) ---
**Author:** ![AncientHumanoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ancienthumanoid/32/278_2.png) [@AncientHumanoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AncientHumanoid)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2004, 11:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-science-support-the-biblical-snakes-once-had-feet-story/223303/2 "2004-01-07T23:10:45Z")
The Bible doesn’t specifically say that snakes had feet before the Fall of Man, though some people may feel it _implies_ such. [Genesis 3:14, the scripture in question.](http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&passage=gen+3%3A14&version=NIV) Mark my words, this will end up in GD. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Sarah23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/50afbb/32.png) [@Sarah23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sarah23)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2004, 11:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-science-support-the-biblical-snakes-once-had-feet-story/223303/3 "2004-01-07T23:14:12Z")
Ahhh…that wasn’t my intention, sorry. But thanks for the link. As an adult, I just have my Sunday School memories to go on and every once in a while I find there are some things that need clearing up, lol. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2004, 11:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-science-support-the-biblical-snakes-once-had-feet-story/223303/4 "2004-01-07T23:22:37Z")
I think there’s some evidence that snakes are descended from lizard-like reptiles that had legs, but I’m pretty sure the evidence will be found to point strongly AWAY from this happening while the human race has been around. Not sure if there’s any evidence of snakes talking - I suspect not. ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2004, 11:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-science-support-the-biblical-snakes-once-had-feet-story/223303/5 "2004-01-07T23:35:29Z")
Snakes have evolved from lizards which had legs. (In fact, they are nothing more than a kind of legless lizard.) Pythons and boas still have [vestigial leg and pelvic bones.](http://www.szgdocent.org/cc/c-boa.htm) There is no scientific support for the biblical statement that snakes “eat dust,” however. ---
**Author:** ![Ice97531](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/bb73d2/32.png) [@Ice97531](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ice97531)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2004, 11:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-science-support-the-biblical-snakes-once-had-feet-story/223303/6 "2004-01-07T23:37:10Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Colibri \* > \*\*There is no scientific support for the biblical statement that snakes “eat dust,” however. \*\* 😛 😛 😛 ---
**Author:** ![AncientHumanoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ancienthumanoid/32/278_2.png) [@AncientHumanoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AncientHumanoid)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2004, 11:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-science-support-the-biblical-snakes-once-had-feet-story/223303/7 "2004-01-07T23:38:21Z")
No need to apologise **Sarah** , it’s a good question. I just see so many Biblical questions without a real clear cut answer available, leading to debate about the actual passage means. Besides, the are many who feel that early Genesis is just metaphor, so the event (the curse) in 3:14 may not have been meant to be literal. As always, with the Bible, ymmv. ---
**Author:** ![Ilsa\_Lund](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/a6a055/32.png) [@Ilsa\_Lund](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ilsa_Lund)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2004, 11:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-science-support-the-biblical-snakes-once-had-feet-story/223303/8 "2004-01-07T23:42:45Z")
[QUOTE[Snakes have evolved from lizards which had legs. (In fact, they are nothing more than a kind of legless lizard.) Pythons and boas still have vestigial leg and pelvic bones.[/QUOTE] I wouldn’t say that that is entirely accurate. Snakes evolved from a legged squamate ancestor. The boid lineage is fairly primitive; colubrids and elapids show very little sign of a girdle. ---
**Author:** ![Bromley](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/4da419/32.png) [@Bromley](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bromley)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2004, 12:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-science-support-the-biblical-snakes-once-had-feet-story/223303/9 "2004-01-08T00:32:36Z")
I think that this is an English only forum 🙂 . ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2004, 12:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-science-support-the-biblical-snakes-once-had-feet-story/223303/10 "2004-01-08T00:37:20Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Ilsa\_Lund \* > I wouldn’t say that that is entirely accurate. Snakes evolved from a legged squamate ancestor. The boid lineage is fairly primitive; colubrids and elapids show very little sign of a girdle. \*\* So what’s a “legged squamate ancestor,” other than a lizard (in popular parlance)? Or perhaps you object to the word “lizard” because it’s a parphyletic group? Yes, cladistically speaking, snakes are generally now believed to be nested within the other Squamata. “Lizards” as a group are paraphyletic, unless snakes are included within them. However, if we may refer to any extant legged squamates as “lizards,” then there is no real reason not to refer to the snakes’ legged ancestors as such as well. This cladogram for the [Squamata](http://www.palaeos.com/Vertebrates/Units/240Squamata/Cladogram.html) shows that the Iguania (containing iguanid lizards, etc.) are the sister-group to the [Scleroglossa](http://www.palaeos.com/Vertebrates/Units/Unit250/250.000.html), which includes various other lizard groups as well as the snakes. I’m not sure what your point about elapids and colubrids is. ---
**Author:** ![BlueMit11](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7feea3/32.png) [@BlueMit11](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BlueMit11)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2004, 12:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-science-support-the-biblical-snakes-once-had-feet-story/223303/11 "2004-01-08T00:49:18Z")
I have no zoological background, just slightly above average experience with herpatology, so excuse the dumbness of this, but if snakes are simply lizards without legs, then what seperates them from true legless lizards? ---
**Author:** ![Ilsa\_Lund](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/a6a055/32.png) [@Ilsa\_Lund](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ilsa_Lund)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2004, 1:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-science-support-the-biblical-snakes-once-had-feet-story/223303/12 "2004-01-08T01:04:32Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Colibri \* > \*\*So what’s a “legged squamate ancestor,” other than a lizard (in popular parlance)? Or perhaps you object to the word “lizard” because it’s a parphyletic group? > > Yes, cladistically speaking, snakes are generally now believed to be nested within the other Squamata. “Lizards” as a group are paraphyletic, unless snakes are included within them. However, if we may refer to any extant legged squamates as “lizards,” then there is no real reason not to refer to the snakes’ legged ancestors as such as well. > > This cladogram for the [Squamata](http://www.palaeos.com/Vertebrates/Units/240Squamata/Cladogram.html) shows that the Iguania (containing iguanid lizards, etc.) are the sister-group to the [Scleroglossa](http://www.palaeos.com/Vertebrates/Units/Unit250/250.000.html), which includes various other lizard groups as well as the snakes. > > I’m not sure what your point about elapids and colubrids is. \*\* I don’t use cladistic taxonomy. Snakes did not evolve from “lizards” as we know them, any more than we evolved from “monkeys.” IMHO. Whether or not the squamates were “lizards” as we know them (i.e order Sauria,) with snakes being a more recent split, I’m not sure. As for the colubrids, I was just making the point that boids do have girdles, but that Elapidae and Colubridae don’t. ---
**Author:** ![Ilsa\_Lund](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/a6a055/32.png) [@Ilsa\_Lund](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ilsa_Lund)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2004, 1:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-science-support-the-biblical-snakes-once-had-feet-story/223303/13 "2004-01-08T01:10:05Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Ilsa\_Lund \* > \*\*I don’t use cladistic taxonomy. > Snakes did not evolve from “lizards” as we know them, any more than we evolved from “monkeys.” IMHO. Whether or not the squamates were “lizards” as we know them (i.e order Sauria,) with snakes being a more recent split, I’m not sure. As for the colubrids, I was just making the point that boids do have girdles, but that Elapidae and Colubridae don’t. \*\* subOrder Sauria. ---
**Author:** ![KP](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/a9adbd/32.png) [@KP](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KP)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2004, 1:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-science-support-the-biblical-snakes-once-had-feet-story/223303/14 "2004-01-08T01:35:55Z")
> [@](#): > > Does science support the biblical “snakes once had feet” story? The answer is “No”. (AFAIK) There is [scientific evidence](http://www.nature.com/nsu/000127/000127-8.html) to support the thesis that snakes evolved from legged creatures. There is not, AFAIK, any scientific evidence to support the _Biblical story_. The distinction is crucial: evidence that supports giant lizardlike creatures does NOT support Chinese stories involving dragons - if the dialogue and events of the story aren’t supported, the “story” isn’t. Other Stories might be. I keep peppering my remarks with AFAIK because I know that I can’t logically prove a negative (and I’m sure that someone could twist some data into evidentiary support of the Biblical story), but I am quite secure that the overwhelming consensus of herpetologists is that here is no _direct scientific evidence_ that “the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou [art] cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life” – even if they believe it to be true. What scientific evidence do we have of any remarks by God? Further, no serious evidence limits snake evolution to the time frame of human history. ---
**Author:** ![DrFidelius](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/drfidelius/32/3447_2.png) [@DrFidelius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrFidelius)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2004, 1:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-science-support-the-biblical-snakes-once-had-feet-story/223303/15 "2004-01-08T01:39:12Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by BlueMit11 \* > \*\*I have no zoological background, just slightly above average experience with herpatology, so excuse the dumbness of this, but if snakes are simply lizards without legs, then what seperates them from true legless lizards? \*\* Lack of an ear, structure of belly scales. And other details of skull, tooth, and eye structure. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2004, 2:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-science-support-the-biblical-snakes-once-had-feet-story/223303/16 "2004-01-08T02:45:32Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by DrFidelius \* > \*\*Lack of an ear, structure of belly scales. And other details of skull, tooth, and eye structure. \*\* Add lack of eyelids and a very distinctive jaw structure significantly different from any lizard’s jaw. (FWIW, no known reptile is known to have had a pinna, “ear” in the sense of “He cut off his ear” or “Beagles have floppy ears,” but lizards have functional middle and inner ears and a miniscule exterior opening.) **Ilsa** , your technical distinction is accurate – but traditional usage says that a quadrupedal member of Order Squamata is a “lizard” and an apodal member is a “snake” (even though there are limbless lizards), so the statement that “snakes evolved from lizards” is accurate in that quadrupedal squamates gave rise to the Serpentes. (Sauria is paraphyletic, by the way; there is no “ancestor of the lizards,” taking all members of Sauria into account, that is not also an ancestor of the snakes.) I do not have data at hand, but I believe there is clear anatomical and biochemical/genetic evidence that all families of snakes share a common ancestry, with the boids being the group that preserves the most primitive characteristics and the colubrids the most specialized. But, as noted, this merely means that Genesis hit this one right in terms of evolutionary sequence, not that there is scientific evidence of God having condemned all snakes in retribution for a serpent’s role in leading Eve to sin. ---
**Author:** ![Ilsa\_Lund](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/a6a055/32.png) [@Ilsa\_Lund](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ilsa_Lund)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2004, 3:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-science-support-the-biblical-snakes-once-had-feet-story/223303/17 "2004-01-08T03:26:21Z")
> [@](#): > > Ilsa, your technical distinction is accurate – but traditional usage says that a quadrupedal member of Order Squamata is a “lizard” and an apodal member is a “snake” (even though there are limbless lizards), so the statement that “snakes evolved from lizards” is accurate in that quadrupedal squamates gave rise to the Serpentes. (Sauria is paraphyletic, by the way; there is no “ancestor of the lizards,” taking all members of Sauria into account, that is not also an ancestor of the snakes.) Not to be too blunt, but I get the distinct feeling you are trying to dazzle me with bullshit. I will soon have a PhD in this, you know. It is a bit pedantic to quibble on the parahpyly of a suborder; as no one really uses them anyway. > [@](#): > > I do not have data at hand, but I believe there is clear anatomical and biochemical/genetic evidence that all families of snakes share a common ancestry, with the boids being the group that preserves the most primitive characteristics and the colubrids the most specialized. Well, duh; not to put too fine a point on it. That was my point to begin with. **Colibri** , you intrigue me. What is your story? ---
**Author:** ![Ilsa\_Lund](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/a6a055/32.png) [@Ilsa\_Lund](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ilsa_Lund)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2004, 3:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-science-support-the-biblical-snakes-once-had-feet-story/223303/18 "2004-01-08T03:31:03Z")
In addition, Sauria is paraphyletic in that it does _not_ include all taxa derived from the common Squamate ancestor. The only constituent taxa it includes are the “lizards.” Hence the uselessness of the suborders Sauria and Serpentes to begin with. This is where cladistics comes in handy. ---
**Author:** ![Tamerlane](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tamerlane/32/7602_2.png) [@Tamerlane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tamerlane)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2004, 4:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-science-support-the-biblical-snakes-once-had-feet-story/223303/19 "2004-01-08T04:54:37Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Ilsa\_Lund \* > **Colibri** , you intrigue me. What is your story? I’m guessing Lucky Starr and the Pirates of the Asteroids, but I could be wrong. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Ilsa\_Lund \* > In addition, Sauria is paraphyletic in that it does _not_ include all taxa derived from the common Squamate ancestor. The only constituent taxa it includes are the “lizards.” Hence the uselessness of the suborders Sauria and Serpentes to begin with. This is where cladistics comes in handy. Eh? I thought you just said you weren’t a cladist? And if you consider suborder Sauria/Lacertilia “useless”, then why quibble over the term “lizard”? Anyway you’ll find plenty of standard references like Colbert and Morales’ Evolution of the Vertebrates:_A History of Backboned Animals Through Time_ ( 4th ed., 1991, Wiley-Liss, Inc. ), quite explicitly ( if briefly ) saying that snakes arose from lizard ancestors. Of course they are considering the earliest “lizards” to be genera like _Paliguana_ and _Saurosternon_ from the upper Permian or lower Triassic, which most workers wouldn’t include in the modern Squamata. But the earliest squamates seem to arise by the mid-Jurassic, earlier than any known snake fossil, making the possibility of a squamate origin not at all unlikely ( whether it be from marine platynotan lizards like Mosasaurs or some terrestrial critter ). Perhaps use of the word “lizard-like” would be an acceptable compromise? - Tamerlane ---
**Author:** ![Darwins\_Finch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/darwins_finch/32/20304_2.png) [@Darwins\_Finch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darwins_Finch)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2004, 5:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-science-support-the-biblical-snakes-once-had-feet-story/223303/20 "2004-01-08T05:03:42Z")
It may (or may not) be worth noting that the cladistic version of Sauria is rather different from the Linnaean version. The Linnaean suborder lies within the order Squamata, and consists of some 26 families of various “lizards”. The cladistic Sauria lies much further back in the reptilian Family Tree, being somewhat synonymous with “diapsid”, and consists of the most recent common ancestor of the groups Lepidosauromorpha (which in turn contains most of the various extinct marine reptiles [specifically, the ichthyosaurs are excluded; Icthyosauria is a sister clade to this version of Sauria], as well as all of Squamata [which, of course, also includes all true lizards and all snakes]) and Archosauromorpha (which contains all the croco-critters, dinosaurs, pterosaurs, birds, and so on), and all its descendents. The (as far as I know) unnamed node which unites Amphisabaena, Gekkota, Scincomorpha and Anguimorpha would be the closest cladistic version of the Linnaean suborder Sauria, I believe. As for the “lizard” bit, lizard works (for me) as a general descriptor of morphology, rather than having to be a name for any actual clade. Kinda like “rat” works for any number of generic, rat-like early mammals 😃 [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-science-support-the-biblical-snakes-once-had-feet-story/223303.md?page=2)