This story occurs at the end of this documentary about sea snakes: “But in the context of evolution, they became used to living in the sea where pray was much more plentiful…….nostrils that can be completely closed, a tail in the shape of an oar and big lungs that help them to stay under water.”
This story occurs at the end of this documentary about sea snakes: “But in the context of evolution, they became used to living in the sea where pray was much more plentiful…….nostrils that can be completely closed, a tail in the shape of an oar and big lungs that help them to stay under water.”
The commentator accepts the dogma that all living things came to be by evolution and therefore attributes the physiology of these snakes to evolution. Without any scientific proof, it makes no sense to support such a claim because this physiology has a highly complex structure. Logically speaking, to subscribe to this idea is the same as to claim that a jet aircraft came to possess by the process of blind chance the wings and engine that keep it in the air. It is unacceptable to claim that both of these perfect designs came into being by blind chance and not offer any explanation for them.
On the other hand, to connect this design that makes it possible for a snake to live in water with ‘getting used’ to living in water is also not acceptable. No matter how long a land creature spends in the water, and no matter how much it gets used to being in the water, it will never develop these characteristics. For example, even if pearl fishers spend thousands of generations diving for pearls, their hands and feet will never turn into fins.
It is only because National Geographic TV is blindly devoted to Darwinism that it narrates these unscientific stories and expects its viewers to believe them.
