Scientists: New amphibian family augurs more India discoveries
An adult Chikilidae, a new family of legless amphibian known as a caecilian, is shown with eggs and hatchlings in India.
February 23rd, 2012
07:27 PM ET

Scientists: New amphibian family augurs more India discoveries

Scientists have found what they say is a new family of legless amphibians in Northeast India - animals they say may have diverged from similar vertebrates in Africa when the land masses separated tens of millions of years ago.

The find, the scientists say, might foreshadow other discoveries in Northeast India and might help show the area played a more important evolutionary role than previously thought.

The creatures are part of an order of limbless, soil-dwelling amphibians called caecilians - not to be confused with snakes, which are reptiles. Caecilians were previously known to consist of nine families in Asia, Africa and South America.

But different bone structures in the head distinguish this apparent 10th family, and DNA testing links the creatures not to other caecilians in India, but to caecilians that are exclusively from Africa, the scientists report this week in the Proceedings of the Royal Society of London.

The new family has been dubbed Chikilidae by the scientists from India, Belgium and the United Kingdom, including lead author Rachunliu Kamei, who was pursuing her doctorate at University of Delhi. The team found them during what it believes is the first caecilian survey in Northeast India, digging at 238 sites from 2006 to 2010.

“It’s an amazing thing to find a new family, especially vertebrates, in this day in age,” Global Wildlife Conservation president Don Church, who was not part of the team but knows Kamei and the team’s other scientists, told CNN on Thursday. “Birds, reptiles and amphibians really were thought to have been well worked out at the family level.”

The burrowing amphibians “exhibit an intriguing and highly specialized reproductive behavior,” the team’s leader, University of Delhi professor Sathyabhama Das Biju, told The Times of India.

“The mother builds underground nests for her eggs, guards her egg-clutch by coiling around them until the embryos hatch after 2-3 months,” he told The Times of India. “The eggs undergo direct development - they feed on the yolk reserves and come out as miniature adults.”

Residents of the area had mistaken the amphibians for snakes, the Indian news outlet reported.

Chikilidae’s link to the African caecilians, and its divergence and survival in Northeast India during the subcontinent’s isolation before it joined with Asia, suggests the area had long-term ecological stability. That suggests it might have more life endemic to that region than is currently recognized, the scientists say in the report.

Scientists traditionally have viewed Northeast India as just a passageway where flora and fauna moved between biodiversity hotspots in Southeast Asia and a different part of India, Church said.

“Now, with a study like this, we realize that this part of the world is important not just for the movement of plants and animals between the Indian subcontinent and southeast Asia, but an important area for evolution in its own right,” Church said.

“This discovery begs the question: What else has happened up there in terms of evolution of life in Northeast India?” he added.

Geographically distinct Northeast India has not been studied well, and many other undocumented creatures and flora may await there, according to the team. The region is almost cut off from the rest of India, nearly surrounded by Bangladesh, Myanmar and China.

Time, they say, is of the essence.

“Further explorations and conservation actions are urgent because the region’s biodiversity is generally under high threat from the growing resident human population and rapid deforestation,” the scientists say in their report.

Post by:
Filed under: Amphibians • Animals • India • Nature • Science
soundoff (516 Responses)
  1. Scott

    Im from chicago here n the state and I have some Caecilians worms as a pet and they r great until, they would try to escape from the tank! but they get the size of a human body like a snake if u take good care of them! And these Caecilians worms has been around for a long time because I had mind for over 6yrs since they were babies and now they r about 20" long and still growing and they eat any meat thats fresh and luv fresh water! So,long story short u guys didnt make a new discovery they were already thier and they can swim to different part of the world as long as its clean water around they will be ok! I luv them! if u guys need help on what to do with them call me! and they r part of the snake family and worm! first born they run with the worms then,as they grow they become part of the snake family but they dont attack but they can swallow whole like a snake! but they make good pet and get alone with fish!

    February 23, 2012 at 11:13 pm | Report abuse |
    • 13Directors

      If you're serious, please keep them contained.

      February 24, 2012 at 12:15 am | Report abuse |
    • Davit

      Check the story again: a new family (Chikilidae) within the order (Caecilians) was discovered.

      February 24, 2012 at 12:37 am | Report abuse |
    • nepawoods

      when they reach 21", they grow razor fangs and drain your eyeballs of their fluids while you sleep. but I agree, until then, great pets.

      February 24, 2012 at 12:41 am | Report abuse |
    • sharon

      LOL, Nepawoods.

      February 24, 2012 at 1:53 am | Report abuse |
  2. BOMBO ©

    I know Rachunliu Kamei must be busting with pride right now, and as someone who works in science and technology, I can understand it. But the rest of us are looking at that slimy mass, shaking our heads and saying, DUDE that is the defining moment of your life?

    February 24, 2012 at 12:03 am | Report abuse |
    • dsavio

      and that right there demonstrates the lack of imagination and wonder of some people

      February 24, 2012 at 1:05 am | Report abuse |
  3. Tom

    Oh boy, logical fallacy alert! As a scientist, the phrase "begs the question" makes me cringe since this is a case of circular logic. I don't disagree with the implications of the study; however, incorrectly placing the conclusion (even when disguised as a question) as part of the premise is a major fallacy, even if inadvertant. What Church should have said is: "This discovery RAISES the question". Church might benefit from studying the logical pitfalls of "petitio principii".

    February 24, 2012 at 12:12 am | Report abuse |
  4. justin

    this goes to show how life can evolve from the sea to land:)

    February 24, 2012 at 12:13 am | Report abuse |
    • Chris

      No it doesn't, God created these animals on the 6th day!

      February 24, 2012 at 12:54 am | Report abuse |
    • Gustavo

      No, they are here to remind us that we were created by the Flying Spaghetti Monster. C'mon, look at the picture, it is obvious!

      February 24, 2012 at 1:32 am | Report abuse |
    • U First

      If we evolved, then Uncle Charlie and Aunt Bea are at the local zoo and need to be let out.

      We were created. There's a BIG difference between man and animals. They weren't credit even on the same day.

      February 24, 2012 at 4:27 am | Report abuse |
    • U First

      Sorry. I meant they weren't created on the same day.

      February 24, 2012 at 4:30 am | Report abuse |
    • Samwise

      "If we evolved, then Uncle Charlie and Aunt Bea are at the local zoo and need to be let out. " God, that's as dumb as saying "If we were created, then my printer is a God." Please tell me you aren't so simple you think "evolution" means "a monkey turned into a man." Fifth graders know better than that. It's as if I said "Christians worship the Bible." Did you hear a comedian say that and thought it was funny? It's embarrassing.

      February 24, 2012 at 2:55 pm | Report abuse |
  5. Balashi

    Good fishing bait for Bass and Pike!

    February 24, 2012 at 12:27 am | Report abuse |
  6. high hopes


    I accidently hit the report abuse bar while scanning. Please disregard.


    ewwwwwwww ugly snakes…

    February 24, 2012 at 12:35 am | Report abuse |
  7. sachin s kaulge

    hi they r many many new things still to find in india

    February 24, 2012 at 12:42 am | Report abuse |
  8. Shane

    Tremors!!!!!!!!!!!!! Comes to life!

    February 24, 2012 at 12:52 am | Report abuse |
  9. ViperGuy

    Every new species discovery always has to have some evolved link just because it's unique and can't be explained away. Tell me how Eyeballs evolved to exist over time. Tell me the receptor cones formed by chance. Tell me how those receptor cones evolved to connect to mitochondria over time. Tell me how the mitochondria, by chance formed a connecting nucleus with fully functional synaptic terminal nerves that forms a synapse with a neuron. Then tell me how the nerves just happened to wire themselves to the brain so it could process all that. Tell me how the brain then programmed itself over millions of years to process, flip the image, then store it to memory. Tell me how all that code then made it's way to a programmed cell through DNA to replicate the whole thing and replace damaged cells. Tell me how evolving explains to complex machine that actually replicates the DNA (Have you ever seen pictures of this sub-nano machine which has a clamp, replication fork, a primase, an RNA primer, and a polymerase dimer, which all work together using a template DNA?? Look it up! It's a simple yet genius design.)

    The haploid human genome has around 3 gigabases. Who programmed each one? Who programmed the the mechanism to read the DNA code and know what to do with it? What are the odds of just a kilo-base coding itself through time and recoding to survive because it was the fittest code? What are the odds of doing that 3 million more times, in the right order, to complete the code? What are the odds of perfectly replicating all that code, modifying it for a set need, then pass it on in order to procreate? There is design and purpose to everything in existence and these narrow minded scientists waste all their efforts trying to link everything with evolution. Fully study ONE human cell, and I mean really study it. You may never fully understand all it's inner workings, yet it works. There is no way this stuff evolved into existence, it's mathematically impossible.

    For those who's brain hasn't "evolved" enough to comprehend, here's a simple one. What are the odds of one monkey writing the periodic table on paper, then repeating it a a couple hundred thousand times without one error? The same odds of primordial soup forming one single working cell. Nevermind the impossible odds of that cell reproducing with any function in mind.

    February 24, 2012 at 1:10 am | Report abuse |
    • Ben

      You are aware that the development of life took a couple billion years? There were plenty of chances to hit those odds, and all it took is once.

      Amino acids, lipids, and nucleic acids can spontaneously form in solution when subjected to electric shock (assuming the right building blocks are in the solution). It's even easier to polymerize them once they are formed. A one in a billion chance is great odds when you are dealing with billions of billions of molecules on a billion year timeframe.

      February 24, 2012 at 1:23 am | Report abuse |
    • Ryan

      Finally, an intelligent comment on CNN. Thank You.

      February 24, 2012 at 1:25 am | Report abuse |
    • Thatguy

      There is a great book you should read called "Your inner fish." It's a great book on evolution. As far as your eye question, do some research on mollusks. You will find some possible answers for how something as complex as an eye evolved. Some have just simple light receptor cells and others, like squid, have a camera type eye. The eye, in all it's glory, is not perfect. The blind spot in the back of the retina is a good example. Why would there be a blind spot at the point where the best focus is? Point is, there will always be things we will not understand and will never be able to explain. Sounds like to me, you took a couple introductory biology courses and with this broad scope of information it seems impossible to make sense of it all. Evolution takes place on a time scale that is unimaginable to us and will continue to happen until the sun runs out of fuel and life in our solar system no longer exists. The scientists are trying to explain how we came to be instead of the easy explanation of creationism, which doesn't explain anything. Just because you struggle to understand science beyond your cognitive ability, doesn't mean it can't and doesn't happen.

      February 24, 2012 at 1:57 am | Report abuse |
    • A Nomeite

      if you understood evolution, you'd know it has nothing to do with chance. Evolution is driven by natural selection, not by "astronomical odds".

      February 24, 2012 at 1:59 am | Report abuse |
    • Yawn

      Yawn, another argument (or should I say "non-argument") citing "Irreducible Complexity." I understand, you're completely ignorant and unable to research your argument but just because you can't understand doesn't mean we're all at the same remedial level you are.

      Irreducible complexity is a sham like creationism and it has already been debunked. I'm surprised you cited the human eyeball for your argument, not even the IC-spouting creationist pseudo-scientists would use that since it's explained away so easily. Here's a hint, the evolution of the eyeball took billions of years. Throughout this time period, it's quite easy to imagine how an eyeball would form and it is entirely plausible and whether you're too stupid to understand is not a factor here. A tree falling in the forest is appropriate here.

      For a start, photosensitive cells occur on an organism by mutation and this organism has an advantage because it can detect light. Those with these cells on higher locations (as opposed to their feet) have a greater advantage and are further selected over those without photosensitive cells or with them at bad locations. As time progresses, mutations further occur where ridges form and those with ridges are further selected because the ridges reflect light that hits the ridges in towards the center where the photosensitive cells are. The ridges become deeper and you have the surrounding eye socket. From this point any number of mutations can results in selection advantages for cones, rods and a secreted covering for the eyeball itself.

      The hilarious part is where you think this system which is observed today in the mutation and selection of antibiotic resistant bacteria is less plausible than some fanciful notion that a magic man created everything out of nothing.

      Stay ignorant.

      February 24, 2012 at 2:03 am | Report abuse |
    • nepawoods

      Tell me how ... tell me how ... tell me how. Can't tell me how? Therefore it must be God! Sorry, pathetically fallacious argument.

      Then, what are the odds ...? what are the odds ...? etc. Well, with trillions of organisms reproducing with mutations, independent assortment of genes, natural selection ... we know that all happens ... you have a mathematical model for that, so that you can conclude "mathematically impossible"? No, you don't. Your simplistic analysis from numbers of base pairs does not capture the process of evolution at all.

      February 24, 2012 at 2:06 am | Report abuse |
    • mary

      So True~!
      If I sat here and tried to tell anyone that this computer put its self together , everyone, and I mean everyone would say I was out of my mind..They would tell me only an idiot would think it put itself together.. That a intelligence 'was' behind its design..
      Yet anyone that claims the universe and anything in it came from an inteligence. is called an idiot...
      Amazing ..

      February 24, 2012 at 2:31 am | Report abuse |
    • chris

      by golly your right! the theory of this all powerful deity that live in the sky and magically created us all into existence makes way more sense! dumbass.....

      February 24, 2012 at 2:41 am | Report abuse |
    • wayne317


      "If I sat here and tried to tell anyone that this computer put its self together , everyone, and I mean everyone would say I was out of my mind.."

      Do you know why? Because computers can't reproduce. Living things can. What a stupid comparison.

      "They would tell me only an idiot would think it put itself together.."

      They would be correct.

      " That a intelligence 'was' behind its design.."

      It was, and that intelligence had parents who guess what? Reproduced! Reproduced, do you get it now? So where is God's daddy and mommy?

      "Yet anyone that claims the universe and anything in it came from an inteligence. is called an idiot..."

      Because they then stop when they get to God instead of asking the next logical question. Intelligence can't make itself can it?

      February 24, 2012 at 3:09 am | Report abuse |
    • JL

      Response to darwinian evolutionists:
      Do you really feel comfortable hiding behind "billions of years"? Is it logical to believe that given enough time, matter and energy could explode from nothing and organize itself so precisely as to eventually self create a human being? It's not improbable, it's impossible. Consider this, we as humans possess intelligence. We are capable of creating codes and information that are present and necessary for the creation of all living things. Yet, we are completely incapable of creating life from existing non-living material. We can't even revive creatures that were once living (except miraculously). So you believe that even though we can't do it, "nothing" must have done it. Nothing + Time = Nothing, it's that simple. Since darwinian evolution is based solely on materialism, it can't even account for the existence of information, which is completely non-material (neither matter nor energy). Only intelligence can create information, therefore it's obvious that a supreme intelligence created this universe because of the overwhelmingly complex information systems we find.

      Ok, so we've established the universe was created by supreme intelligence, either a god or many gods. How do we know which religion, if any is focused on worshipping the correct gods? Though I'm not an expert in all religions, I believe only Christianity can be true. The bible gives a good explanation for life's big questions. Who created us? What is our purpose? Where do we go when we die? Other religions may present answers as well, some of which are similar. But that would be expected if they are merely knock-offs of the truth. Christianity is the only faith that gives us an answer to the problem of our sin against a perfect and holy God. Christ willingly died for all who believe in Him, so that we have a perfect sacrifice and payment for our sin so that we can be reunited to God. He was resurrected and lives so that we live. All other, false religions teach that salvation is based on your works. But this cannot be true if God is a good judge. A good judge does not let evil go unpunished.

      I know this has gone completely off topic. Can't even remember what the article was about. Disgusting looking worm-like creatures, I think. Anyway, I like an opportunity to share my faith and I know faith comes by hearing the word of God. I wasn't a Christian until I read the gospels for myself. God draws people to Him, and who are we to resist His will, but I believe you have to take a few steps toward Him yourself. Crack open the bible and read with an open heart. Some stuff may seem a little out there, like a virgin birth, or Christ rising from the dead, but remember, you currently believe we all rose from nothing. If you have more questions about creation/evolution, is a terrific website and ministry. You'll soon realize, that only those who believe in God and trust His word have true wisdom and logical answers to life's tough questions.

      February 24, 2012 at 3:32 am | Report abuse |
    • Voig Nederlander

      "Yawn" has this exactly right. Irreducible Complexity is well-travelled and well-refuted territory. No one buys its arguments.

      However, the most easily explained part of why it's such nonsense is a simple perspective: the theory assumes that things like the eye would need to be designed to do what they do, rather than simply doing what they do BECAUSE they evolved into that. We could as easily ask WHY the eye wasn't "designed" to see infrared, or radio waves for example. If God "designed" the eye, he sure did leave out a huge chunk of the EM spectrum that might be nice for us to see.

      February 24, 2012 at 3:59 am | Report abuse |
    • Kat

      @JL I just had to address a few points in order to highlight and illuminate your bias. First, you say that Christianity allows humans to atone for their "sin". This assumes that what you've been told is a sin, is objectively a sin. I assume you are referring to original sin, possibly heaped onto with other sins we acquire through life. Original sin is simply being blamed for our parents having physical congress (trying to avoid the filters). Should you really be blamed for the actions of others? That doesn't seem fair. Should such an act even be considered bad considering it's necessary for the continuation of our species and civilization? Really? You bought that line of dog dung? To me that's a big red flag.

      Next you state "you currently believe we all rose from nothing". This is not true at all. Humans 'rose' from a long line of ancestors, millions of generations, all the way back to single celled organisms. All life on Earth (that we've found so far) is descended from these simple (and might I add, mindachingly beautiful) lifeforms. Trees, amebas, these caellicians things, and us. Our knowledge of life's origin's before that is a bit fuzzy, but it's okay we don't have the answers right now–it really is, because we know that the answers will come as we continue to investigate–and that's one of the awesome, joyful things about science–you get to find out new, awesome stuff all the time (how people can find an ossified book written in the bronze age cooler than that is totally beyond me). Anyway, we also know that amino acids, which make up all proteins and are crucial for life, are made spontaneously pretty much anywhere liquid water can exist. It is widely thought now, that the visible universe is rife with life (at least simple life), just because the laws of chemistry and physics make the universe an excellent environment for it (which ties into the weak anthropic principle...but I won't explode your head with that one right now).

      The last nit I'll pick (there are still many) is that you say that only intelligence can create information. Um no, unless we have different definitions of what information is. I'll give you an extremely basic example of information. In an atom, electrons are usually paired off in orbitals–which means they statistically occupy a particular region at a particular energy level. The electrons must have opposite spins. If you change spin in one electron, the other electron's spin must also flip. Information is exchanged/preserved between the two electrons. Why? It's a rule of physics: electrons cannot occupy the same energy level and spin. You could argue than an intelligent entity set up the rule, but it's the rule itself that creates information. Intelligence itself is not necessary to create information. If you take the time to study and learn enough of these weird fundamental rules (testable, undeniable, completely objective facts), the idea of an anthropomorphic progenitor (with feelings and desires) seems increasingly ludicrous.

      February 24, 2012 at 4:25 am | Report abuse |
    • U First

      Not a 'new' species.

      These animals have always been here. Man is too busy destroying the earth to look and find more creatures that have been here all the time.

      February 24, 2012 at 4:28 am | Report abuse |
    • MR_K

      I love how whenever an article about this or God comes out all the evolutionists resort to name calling in the end @ chris.

      Truth is I'm a believer in God soley on my study of Science. I don't believe in a religion or worship a God, but I cannot deny the fact that this earth and everything involved runs in perfect form that the idea that chaos and chance formed it is just absurd.

      I mean look at blood clotting. Probably something none of think twice about. Yet there are hundreds are actives involved and chemicals being used. If one of these is missing or out of place then you can have a ton of results from it (hypothermia, bleeding out, infection, shock, siezure). But I doubt we ever took the time to think about how such a complex thing was only for taking care of a paper cut, imagine dying from a paper cut?. I wonder how many of our poor ancestors had to bleed out before our body got it right.

      February 24, 2012 at 6:08 am | Report abuse |
    • Yawn

      Mary, you're a dunce. Wayne's right. A computer is not analogous to any living being. You sound as ridiculous as Anwar Al-Awlaki and his analogy between a self-guided cargo ship and the universe. Nobody would believe a computer put itself together because it's physical impossible. At every step and every piece is man made. The evolution of a human being is not physically impossible, the odds might be slim and that's debatable but it's not impossible. The two aren't even remotely analogous, you fail. This failure in logic is common in religious people, that's why they believe the nonsense they do. If you can't even sort out a simple analogy, you expect me to believe you're capable of critical thinking?

      "MR_K" quite the contrary, I was minding my business until I started reading these creationist morons preaching like they always do. You see that's the problem, religious nutcases can't keep their mental illness to themselves, they insist on infesting everyone around them. Are you of the camp that naively attributes this to atheism? Well that would make sense if you excuse the fact that religion has been preached to people who couldn't give a rats ass for years, just ask missionaries.

      But then again what would you know? You're as biased as the moron who started this conversation. You're a creationist, you believe in irreducible complexity by citing the blood clotting cascade, again debunked. Like the rest of the religious nutcases you fail to realize how incredibly wrong you are because you gloss over everything. You think ANYTHING resembles perfect form? Are you positively mad? For every example of perfection you can find me, I can find tenfold examples that must disprove that perfection. It's people like you that claim we must have been created, look at these bounties from God, look at how we can run and how smart we are, completely ignoring cancer, completely ignoring all of our weaknesses, face it the argument of creation due to perfection is nonsense because NOTHING in this world or in this universe remotely resembles perfection. There's more evidence of total imperfection everywhere around us starting with cancer and the myriad of diseases human beings face. This only leads to one conclusion, there is no God and everything has taken the path it has taken due to the choices made by nature and people and random chance. Nothing more.

      February 24, 2012 at 9:04 am | Report abuse |
    • ViperGuy

      No amount of time, Billions or even Trillions of years could create a living organism. And even if it were possible, lets say that over time amino acids produced a TRULY living organism comprised of living cells, that being a 1 in a Billion chance, how did the reproduction mechanism form before that organism died? The reproduction factory that copies DNA would be such an impossible feat in itself. You call creationists irrational, yet you ignore simple facts, simple math. Here's a simple math problem for a university brainwashed student (I myself was one), take the laws of probability... To keep things simple, say it's probable that in order to evolve ONE living cell, the chances are 1 in a 1,000,000. Now assume that cell lives long enough, say the odds of that cell possessing the proper DNA sequence in order to reproduce is 1 in 1,000,000. Now that odds of doing those two simple tasks is a simple as multiplying the two numbers together because it's no different than the odds of winning the lottery twice in a row on the same day. That comes out to 1 in a TRILLION chance of happening. Now what are the chances of that successful, reproducing cell, forming into a useful organ with a purpose? Let's say, also 1 in million. Multiply that by a trillion, and you already have an impossible solution.

      Ben said: "Amino acids, lipids, and nucleic acids can spontaneously form in solution when subjected to electric shock (assuming the right building blocks are in the solution). It's even easier to polymerize them once they are formed. "
      Assuming the right building blocks are in the solution?? Really?? That just blew your billion years theory right out of spectrum because in order for those three variables to be precise, it would have to be staged in a lab and you still would have to use pre-existing components, that in themselves, can't be explained where they came from. For that to occur in nature, no amount of time of would allow this to happen.

      And if any of you knew anything serious about DNA and how it reproduces, you would understand that it's not just improbable for the DNA to have evolved the mechanism to reproduce itself, it IMPOSSIBLE! The inner workings are that of a real life factory line. Look up diagrams of that alone, they are waaaaayyy too complex to have lined up perfectly by chance or evolution. The odds are not only astronomical, they are indeed impossible. Chaos in nature would allow it to exist. Murphy's law would kick in long before one DNA factory could sustain itself, and then happened to have survived within the one cell that happened to make it through the insurmountable odds of beating the "survival of the fittest" process. Too many improbabilities make it impossible.

      Now here's a simple theory, creationism has been banned from schools for some time. It's not taught in most universities, yet the "theory of evolution" has been shoved down your throats since childhood and all through college. Then you are subjected to it through the media, books, and all over the Internet. The cycle perpetuates itself by the fact that it's considered "idiotic" to even consider any other options. That's called being BRAINWASHED. Many religions do it, and the schools are no different. If a religion can brainwash a person to blow themselves up with NO OTHER OPTION, how easy is it for intelligent professors and scientist to brainwash you from infancy to believe a highly impossible theory with no possible alternatives on the table. The difference is you paid to be subjected to this one-track thinking, without even realizing it. What reasonable person would conclude that everything came into existence by chance and survival of the fittest, without considering one simple alternative, One being came into existence and created it all. Think about it, what are the odds of a billion variables coming into existence, then supporting each other just enough to not exterminate the other, creating a perfect environment for all living things to exist. All these theories never take into account the impossible odds of how the Earth itself is just the right size, tilted at just the right angle, at just the right distance from the sun, at just the right temperature, and have all the right components to sustain life. Of all the Trillions of planets in the universe, this was the one that had all those variables, and at the same time, happened to be the one that kicked it all off? Come on, it's Waaaayyy more probable that ONE single intelligent being came into existence, then created all this. Evolution doesn't explain why we have a sense of Love, Justice, and sometimes rarely, Wisdom. These qualities do not fit in with survival of the fittest, it contradicts it. Survival of the fittest has no room for morals, no love, no compassion.

      Just because most religions are indeed wrong, doesn’t mean the being who had the Bible penned doesn’t exist. All it takes in creationism is ONE, just one improbable variable, not a billion, not a million, not even a hundred improbable variables, just one. And that One has been mocked, ignored, and ridiculed, and He allowed it out of love. But for how long?

      February 24, 2012 at 11:10 am | Report abuse |
    • ViperGuy

      Voig Nederlander said: "If God "designed" the eye, he sure did leave out a huge chunk of the EM spectrum that might be nice for us to see."

      For what purpose? Why would you want to see beyond the spectrum you already see? What would be the benefit? We see the colors we see, so we can enjoy life. Anything more would distort our perceptions in negative ways. If you are going to use that theory, why do we need to see colors at all? In order to survive? The fittest don't need to see colors, it's contrary to being needed to survive. Colorblind individuals survive just find despite their deformity because of imperfection. Do dogs need to see colors? No. They wouldn't know how to appreciate the colors of a flower, it's not necessary for them to live, and they live to entertain us, to humans joy. In fact, most animals shouldn't even exist because "survival of the fittest" works against them. Many of them should have been killed off long ago, yet they survive. Not one sparrow falls without Him knowing, aren't you worth more than many sparrows? Matthew 10:29-31.

      February 24, 2012 at 11:48 am | Report abuse |
    • JL

      I acknowledge and am quite proud of my bias. There are no unbiased arguments, everyone has presuppositions. We all have to pick sides and was simply giving a logical argument for why my choice.

      February 24, 2012 at 12:45 pm | Report abuse |
    • Samwise

      "Tell me how Eyeballs evolved to exist over time." Short version: the ones that couldn't see died. The ones that could lived. Repeat over and over for a million years. NOT six thousand, sir. You can cut and paste stuff at me all day and it's still just silly creationist propaganda. You can tell me over and over how long a shot it is that animals evolved from chemical compounds, but the fact is that those odds came in and we are here. You can also prove a bumblebee can't fly. What you can't prove is that God had anything to do with it either way. Most life on Earth is insect; much of it is parasitic or disgusting. Why did God want nematodes, or polio, or leprosy? Why won't broken nerves reconnect? This world wasn't 'designed' by anything friendly or good; it's a killing ground where the fit survive.

      February 24, 2012 at 3:05 pm | Report abuse |
    • ViperGuyIsAnApe

      @ViperGuy and JL

      Do you go to a car mechanic when you need antibiotics or you are having a medical emergency?

      Do you understand the relevance of this question?

      February 27, 2012 at 1:47 pm | Report abuse |
  10. Sean

    are they saying western scientists discover that? I'm pretty sure most locals know about them...

    February 24, 2012 at 1:11 am | Report abuse |
    • nepawoods

      But the locals didn't know that nobody ever discovered them.

      February 24, 2012 at 1:54 am | Report abuse |
    • A Nomeite

      maybe, but the locals mistook them for snakes and didn't know what they were

      February 24, 2012 at 2:01 am | Report abuse |
    • Samwise

      The cool part is that they think the continent split right there and the ones in Africa were carried away as it moved.

      February 24, 2012 at 3:07 pm | Report abuse |
  11. Matthew

    Just looks like earthworms to me.. :/

    February 24, 2012 at 1:18 am | Report abuse |
  12. Drock

    O.K. cool, just some more nasty worms to deal with!!!!!

    February 24, 2012 at 1:21 am | Report abuse |
  13. amaathya

    This is all a liberal media hoax to prove evolution is real! 😀

    February 24, 2012 at 1:57 am | Report abuse |
  14. Ryan

    Never match wits with a Caecilian when DEATH is on the line!

    February 24, 2012 at 2:31 am | Report abuse |
    • dazzle ©

      The site of these creatures look like something out of Stephen King and Dean Koontz.No thanks, nightmares I don't need.

      February 24, 2012 at 2:43 am | Report abuse |
    • Thanks

      That quote was the best post in this entire discussion. I'm going to stop reading now.

      February 24, 2012 at 12:53 pm | Report abuse |
  15. jOHN

    Sure, the religious statements have begun. Here's my simple answer to a few peoples retarded long winded, and highly snobby comments. Who the hell made God if god exists? Why in hell would any god ever allow such disgusting life forms to exist when we just kill and reproduce over and over for millions of years. Animals do it, but they don't say "God's name in vain" but we do and "God" so loved the world he gave his son? Really? He gave his son soo we could get into heaven? WHy not just let us into heaven if you make the rules, instead of watching your son tortured and removed from out planet? With billions of years to spare and limitless galaxies we haven't begun to realize, why are we so sure that God isn't a giant worm who feeds on eye balls and eats stars for snacks?

    February 24, 2012 at 3:36 am | Report abuse |
    • Watching

      Because He is God and you are not. Why is there so much hate and anger in your repsonses? Ask God your questions – not some comment board – and see what He has to say.

      February 24, 2012 at 6:30 am | Report abuse |
    • LuisWu

      All religions are just ancient mythology, written thousands of years ago by members of a primitive culture in an attempt to explain existence and to give comfort in the face of mortality. None of them have any basis whatever in reality. When a person looks at any of them, using logic, reason and objectivity, they can be seen for what they really are, just ancient mythology, nothing more.

      February 24, 2012 at 7:01 am | Report abuse |
    • SundayMass

      @John you make me laugh so much so loud with your retarded comments!! the only thing i can say is bravo! your comment does hit every point and corner of my inner self"

      February 24, 2012 at 7:54 am | Report abuse |
    • ViperGuy


      Just because most religions are indeed wrong, doesn’t mean the Being who had the Bible penned doesn’t exist. All it takes in creationism is ONE, just one improbable variable, not a billion, not a million, not even a hundred improbable variables like in evolution, just one. The odds of just ONE intelligent being coming into existence and causing to become, using his dynamic energy, has far greater odds than EVERYTHING coming about by chance and survival.
      The Earth started as a barren environment. This ONE being created everything, even created them to adapt to their ever changing environment. The animals would need to adapt as the paradise would expand, but they would not evolve into another species, that's mathematically impossible. DNA would have to first de-evolve before re-evolving down a mutated path; it just can't be done in a controlled environment, let alone by chance.

      By saying that if Evolution doesn't exist, then God can't exist is like saying that if a thousand homes didn't have a builder, then the one builder that built them all didn't exist. The odds are simply way more in favor of ONE intelligent being existing from nothing than all the billions of creation existing from nothing. Millions of improbable variables in evolution, only one improbable variable in creation. Why is this so hard to understand?

      February 24, 2012 at 12:29 pm | Report abuse |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14