So, do the math on that first single-celled lifeform.

How long would it take to let it become a viable multi-celled lifeform that reproduces via meiosis vs. mitosis?

How long would it take? How long would it take for the one cell to mutate into something different - considering your "Evolution occurs expotentially - the more species there are in existance, the more mutations that can occur to produce new species, and so on."

One single cell of life, reproducing by copying itself exactly - into... over just how much time?

And going from a mere copy into needing two completely different lifeforms to make a single?

How long?

Show me the math.

sigh

Assuming Evolution is true then this is not a sign of Evolution in progress, just mutation.  A snake would not evolve legs like that in some kind of evolutionary jump, not how evolution is meant to work anyway.  It would develop some fairly insignificant appendage through mutation and then perhaps that would give it some advantage to the rest of it's species.  Barring bad luck then it's children and childrens children should survive better.  Later on further mutation may mean that appendage becomes longer and perhaps with joints and then fingers/toes each thing giving an advantage.

Evolution does not try and claim that all of a sudden snakes grew fully formed legs like a lizard, with toes and joints, and if there had been evolutionary steps that led to the snake in the picture then people would have found these snakes with limbs before.

Again, assuming Evolution is true, this can only show that the snake pictured has descendants that were lizards with limbs.  That at some point a Lizard was born that mutated to not grow limbs and it survived well, perhaps better at something than the limbed Lizards or rather able to survive in a different area or coexist.  The mutation would have been something that inhibited the development of a certain part of it's DNA.  This snake mutated to stop inhibiting the part in it's DNA to create that limb.

Either that of a Lizard raped a snake.

That's all assuming this isn't a hoax of course

For the snakes leg it's most likely not evolutiont hat occured but more devolution.

The ancestors of snakes were 4 leged reptiles, even in modern snakes we see that they still have remains of hind legs, those remains are largely useless.

what happene din thsi snake is simply a genetic anormaly that was randoly caused by nature or caused by chemicals/toxins/polution released in the invivroment by humans that had the effect of reactivating a long dormant gene int he snake that cause ti to grow it's leg.

How ever intersting thing to note is teh teh snake grew just 1 leg and not 2 or 4. So this alone tells us thatthe gene was only activated localy, for if it was activated generaly then the otehr hinde leg would also have growed and we might or might not have seen for limb developement.

As for would thsi snake's kid's have legs too? Probably not since this seems a local gene activation that accured only in the cells of a specify part of the body. Meaning this gene is unlikely to be found in the reproductie cells of this snake since the gene does not seem to be fully activated in the whole of the snakes genome.

But only the autopsie and DNA analasis and comparasion can tell us if this is the case or not.

Not evolution, just a random reactivation of long-dormant genes. A whole leg doesn't develop from nowhere.

I forgot who it is, but there's a well known study involving bacteria evolving to survive within citric acid in a laboratory.

It is, as stated, a mutation. It's a particularly easy mutation, though, because all it has to do is turn off the gene that keeps snakes from growing limbs. Snakes are descended from species which DID have limbs, and rather than having the code for said limbs "removed" (a virtual genetic impossibility) study of snake genetic code reveals that there are simply additional genetic components which prevent the limb-growing genes from being expressed. Turn off the "confounder" gene, and you get a limb like this.

A good (fairly science-heavy) article on this subject is available over at John Wilkins' blog:

http://evolvingthoughts.net/2009/09/15/atavisms-and-phylogeny/#more-3168

My apologies for nitpicking, but either God or Evolution? Are you suggesting that there is as much evidence to back up the God hypothesis as the Theory of Evolution? Either case would have to be equally convincing (via available evidence), and compliant with our previous observations, to be of equal footing and there is a lot of evidence for evolution.

Evolution is observed to be true. It's just Natural Selection, the mechanism of which it goes by, that may still have room for debate. Though so as far as I know, it is already very convincing.

I said nothing of the evidence to support God over Evolution or vice versa. My point was whether you believe in Evolution or Intelligent Design that you can't argue about gene theory. So either God used DNA to create life and included what seems like unnecessary genes in many animals, or evolution is true and the snake is the distant relative of something that did have legs, which is why it can produce them even if it ussually doesn't. You can decide for yourself what seems more likely or has more evidence to support it.

My point is, is that you seem to indicate that both Evolution and Intelligent Design are hypotheses on equal footing, that one may either believe or disbelieve in either with no implications. Evolution is a scientific theory (like Gravitational Theory) while Intelligent Design is an unproven hypothesis with strong religious motivations.

To presume the freedom to choose between the two is to ignore all the evidence we've already accumulated that supports the Theory of Evolution.

I beg to differ. If someone can believe in Intelligent Design in the face of such overwhelming evidence, that same person can be made to believe in many other things by the same mechanism. THAT is a serious implication.