Are you an atheist?

[Galaxiom]

Homosexuality is the conundrum for the Natural Selection theory, and, the reason for my rejection of the same. Natural selection would have eradicated the anomaly as being useless to its purpose.

This notion would apply for a trait that is encoded in a single gene but almost everything is more complex than that.

Start with the well known example of blue eyes. Two brown eyed parents can have a child with blue eyes because the blue gene is recessive. Add in more genes and the picture quickly becomes very complex.

An example where natural selection is clearly involved is the gene for Cystic Fibrosis. Those inflicted with the disease rarely live to reproductive age. A simplistic analysis suggests that it should have been eliminated from the population long ago. However the disease manifests only when two copies of the gene are present. A single copy affords resistance to tuberculosis leading to an increased chance of living to reproductive age for those individuals hence it persists in the population.

Homosexuality very probably has a substantial genetic component. Some of these genes could well lead to increased fertility. The persistence of homosexuality in populations of many species strongly suggests this is the case.

Natural selection applies not to individuals but to a population. A trait that brings a selective disadvantage to some individuals can still persist because it brings an advantage to others. A study in Italy suggested that the sisters of homosexual men may have a significantly higher average number of children.

 

[Galaxiom]

Natural selection aught to be self evident to any reasonable person.

Those who reject it in favour of their own flawed analyses seem incapable of considering the possibility that their lack of understanding is the problem rather than there being something wrong with the accepted position arrived at through the work of thousands of trained scientists.

I would find the dogged persistence in the face of coherent explanation by those such as Mike quite comical if it were not that they have the same rights to influence public policy as the rationally competent.

 

[Mike375]

Natural selection aught to be self evident to any reasonable person.

Those who reject it in favour of their own flawed analyses seem incapable of considering the possibility that their lack of understanding is the problem rather than there being something wrong with the accepted position arrived at through the work of thousands of trained scientists.

I would find the dogged persistence in the face of coherent explanation by those such as Mike quite comical if it were not that they have the same rights to influence public policy as the rationally competent.

I do not deny natural selection in fact I am just the opposite. However I do not believe (at least at this point in time) that natural selection results in a new species. Instead, it makes a version of the species dominant and that dominance could be to the point that another version of the species becomes extinct.

As to a lizard becoming a snake I can accept that but I don't accept or believe the pathway that is put forward.

 

[Galaxiom]

However I do not believe (at least at this point in time) that natural selection results in a new species. Instead, it makes a version of the species dominant and that dominance could be to the point that another version of the species becomes extinct.

Differences between versions become differences between species when enough difference is accumulated.

There can be enough genetic variation for a population to diverge into separate species when groups are geographically separated. It can be as little as birds singing a different mating call. Classic examples are the animals on the Galapagos Islands where groups on different islands diverge from a single ancestral population.

However, natural selection can only act upon what is present in the collective genomes of a population so the scope for change is limited. Radical change require new variants of genes which are provided by mutation over long periods of time.

 

[Mike375]

Differences between versions become differences between species when enough difference is accumulated.

There can be enough genetic variation for a population to diverge into separate species when groups are geographically separated. It can be as little as birds singing a different mating call. Classic examples are the animals on the Galapagos Islands where groups on different islands diverge from a single ancestral population.

However, natural selection can only act upon what is present in the collective genomes of a population so the scope for change is limited. Radical change require new variants of genes which are provided by mutation over long periods of time.

Perhaps I should have been clearer. By a different species I am talking about a complete change...such as lizard to snake etc.

Small theropod dinosaur to bird. That would take some doing as the animals are virtual opposites. The theropod is kangaroo like in the sense of week or small arms and chest muscles but big horsepower at the rear leg department which is just the opposite to the flying bird.

Of course in more recent times palaeontologists are now leaning to the small theropods being descendants of flightless birds.

Again, let me say I am not a denier, rather, I am a searcher looking for the answers. As I said before I am not a denier of evolution but the way it is presented, at least for me, has lots of gaping holes.

The legless lizard has always made me wonder and I have owned them. Apart from not having legs there is not one aspect of them that is even remotely like a snake. In fact they have more in common with a cat or dog than a snake. At this point in time the legless lizard suggests to me that species change, at least via a transition period, is limited to another version of the species.

One other animal I find interesting is the toothed whale whether a dolphin or killer whale etc. Although mammals they have simple reptilian type teeth.

 

[Galaxiom]

Remember that all we see today evolve from ancestral species. One modern species doesn't evolve into another modern species. Snakes and lizards evolved from common ancestors as did dogs and cats and humans. They all evolved from tetrapods which in turn descended from lobed finned fishes.

Many of the genes for related species are still incorporated but not expressed so it isn't so surprising that a mammal could have reptilian-like teeth. Mammals and reptiles both came from the same fish eating ancestors.

We even share more than ten percent of genes with earthworms which one would not immediately think of as being related. We even share many genes with microorganisms, mainly because we use similar chemical processes in our cells.

 

[Mike375]

Remember that all we see today evolve from ancestral species. One modern species doesn't evolve into another modern species. Snakes and lizards evolved from common ancestors as did dogs and cats and humans. They all evolved from tetrapods which in turn descended from lobed finned fishes

That is basically what I have been saying in general and Snakes and lizards evolved from common ancestors is a totally different game to snakes evolving from lizards.

There are many what I would call loose statements that leave out much of what is required.

For example, at the first page of this thread (I think post 12) Rabbie said
"For example if you had a mouse that was 1mm bigger than its parents and this was repeated at each generation It would take only 10 Thousand generations before it towered over an Elephant."

If that did happen each generation there would need to be some very big changes for it to reach elephant size and for the simple reason the volume/weight will increase as the cube but areas will increase as the square.

One problem is that much science is driven by funding to get a result. For example, the issue of whether dinosaurs were warm or cold blooded or perhaps we should be more scientific and say
endothermic or exothermic.

The reasons that animals like lizards etc. lack activity and endurance has nothing to do with being cold blooded. If we could change a monitor lizard to warm blooded the only difference would be in cold weather. Basically its lack of endurance is because of the heart type, very low blood volume and very low blood pressure. In addition when it walks it is similar to someone who is halfway through a push up. It also has a different system for breathing which can mean either it does not breathe when walking or running or air simply goes backwards and forwards between its lungs.

But there is one thing for sure and that is we won't finish with the correct answers on this thread

 

[Galaxiom]

That is basically what I have been saying in general and Snakes and lizards evolved from common ancestors is a totally different game to snakes evolving from lizards.

If you read my statement in context you will see I was referring to modern lizards and modern snakes.

While the precise sequence of snake evolution has not been determined (because snake skeletons are rarely fossilised due to their delicate structure) it is widely accepted that they evolved from ancient lizards. Some snakes still have vestigial hind limbs.

Yes it involves far more than just losing its legs. Moreover it didn't happen in a single step.

Imagine a lizard with a mutation that causes it to grow an extra vertebra in the thorax section of the spine. The gene to replicate the segments the usual number of times is already there. It is only a small change to that gene that causes the embryo to replicate just one extra time in the already segmented body structure.

It won't render the animal unfit to survive and the rest of the body will evolve over subsequent generations to compliment the change.

Now imagine that process being sporadically repeated. It happened once, it can easily happen again and the creature is perhaps prone to it because of the mutation. Not much genetic change but a significant morphological change increasing over generations. Offspring that are overly prone to randomly adding another segment won't do so well because the rest of the body cannot adapt fast enough. Those that don't do it often won't change much but those that do it at just the right rate could have some selective advantage.

Adding one extra segment every ten thousand generations, a million years would be more than enough for the thorax to entirely dominate the body. Yet every generation remained fit for its environment with ten thousand generations in between to adapt to the small changes.

Can you see a snake ultimately emerging from what was originally a lizard?

 

[Mike375]

If you read my statement in context you will see I was referring to modern lizards and modern snakes.

While the precise sequence of snake evolution has not been determined (because snake skeletons are rarely fossilised due to their delicate structure) it is widely accepted that they evolved from ancient lizards. Some snakes still have vestigial hind limbs.

Yes it involves far more than just losing its legs. Moreover it didn't happen in a single step.

Imagine a lizard with a mutation that causes it to grow an extra vertebra in the thorax section of the spine. The gene to replicate the segments the usual number of times is already there. It is only a small change to that gene that causes the embryo to replicate just one extra time in the already segmented body structure.

It won't render the animal unfit to survive and the rest of the body will evolve over subsequent generations to compliment the change.

Now imagine that process being sporadically repeated. It happened once, it can easily happen again and the creature is perhaps prone to it because of the mutation. Not much genetic change but a significant morphological change increasing over generations. Offspring that are overly prone to randomly adding another segment won't do so well because the rest of the body cannot adapt fast enough. Those that don't do it often won't change much but those that do it at just the right rate could have some selective advantage.

Adding one extra segment every ten thousand generations, a million years would be more than enough for the thorax to entirely dominate the body. Yet every generation remained fit for its environment with ten thousand generations in between to adapt to the small changes.

Can you see a snake ultimately emerging from what was originally a lizard?

Yes, I can accept the possibility you have described but there is much more.

I am heading to bed now and will repost tomorrow. For now I will just say a real big barrier to transition to snake is in the eating, killing etc. and the set up with the skull/jaws. There is also another big change that is needed to accompany all the vertebrae that develop as you have outlined.

As a side note I do not have a position of preference. In other words I don't have a starting position and then try to support that position.

Talk to you tomorrow.

 

[Alc]

I call them "born again" because their views are equally rigid.

And because of your tendency to use words to mean whatever you want them to mean, as opposed to their otherwise universally accepted meaning.

I knew it seemed familiar

'I don't know what you mean by "glory",' Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. 'Of course you don't — till I tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"'
'But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument",' Alice objected.
'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Homosexuality is the conundrum for the Natural Selection theory, and, the reason for my rejection of the same. Natural selection would have eradicated the anomaly as being useless to its purpose.

First, the LGBT community is pushing for the issue that they don't have a choice in being born as they are. (And I happen to agree with them.) However, they are not all pushing for the issue to be a "gay gene" because that doesn't exist per se.

Second, here is a bit of research for you to ponder. I will not repeat the techie stuff more than necessary to illustrate the point. I will leave it to you to decide whether you can buy into it. This explanation is still being researched. Therefore, I can only present it as still being a working hypothesis for which a lot of data must be collected. Since I'm a chemist, not a physician, the research isn't in my area of fine-grained expertise.

In a study from the 1990s reported in various British medical journals and repeated in many newspapers. some physicians did the work that discovered that the human brain is physiologically different between men and women. I.e. it is no surprise that men and women don't think exactly alike because they are wired differently. The researchers used Positron Emission Tomography (a.k.a. PET scans) to get images of the brain structure. To see their study, use the following phrase for your favorite search engine

brain scan + homosexual

You will find, if you do the reading, that the second stage of their research, using a larger sample size started to find "outliers" - observations that at first glance appeared to be incorrect or inconsistent with their theory - i.e. a male brain structure in a female body and vice-versa. But further studies showed that the findings were explainable. All of the outliers were homosexual. In essence, those persons were gay because they had a mismatch between the plumbing (of their genitalia) and the wiring (of their brain).

When you hear gay folks talking about the feeling that they were born into the wrong body, they might literally be correct. Of course, this finding piqued the curiosity of the researchers, who finally came up with a mechanism.

At a certain point in early gestation, about when the brain stem starts forming, the fetus is highly susceptible to the mother's hormone balance. If it happens that a really bad hormonal event occurs at that time, the brain takes the cue from the predominant hormone in the imbalance. The hormones make it past the umbilical connection so that the mother's problem affects the fetus. We know this happens because addicted children can be born to addicted mothers even though the child has itself never taken a drug.

The genetic element here is a recessive gene (not yet identified) that allows this imbalance to get strong enough to affect brain stem formation. The reason it is hard to find in gay people is that the gene affects the MOTHER and might not even be passed along to the fetus. (Looking for love in all the wrong places?)

But the gene is even harder to find since it is a matter of having this imbalance occur at the right time to cause the plumbing/wiring mismatch. If the imbalance DOESN'T occur then the child born to that mother looks and acts perfectly normal - but carries a recessive gene that didn't interfere with the mother's ability to have the child. I.e. it is not a reproductive deficit for the one who passed along the DNA. If that is so, then it would not be blocked by natural selection.

Now the last part of this puzzle is that the BRAIN is the most powerful sex organ - it is the wiring that drives you, not the plumbing. If you have the brain of a man, you are turned on by beautiful, sexy women. If you have the brain of a woman, you are turned on by handsome, strong men. Your plumbing has nothing to say about what excites you. This means that your gender preference is NOT a choice. It is a birth condition.

The only reason I know as much as I do is that a member of my wife's extended family is gay. We had that little talk about nature/nurture. I did some research and found the 1990s articles.

In conclusion, those who claim that homosexuality must be a choice because it can't possibly be genetic are missing the fact that it well COULD be genetic via the above mechanism. And that oversight shows that they should not be talking about a subject that they know even less about than I do.

The religious zealots forget that by their standards, we are ALL "children of God" and therefore should not blame others for being different. There is a passage that says something to the effect that God knows us before we leave the womb. If so, He must not be bothered by a little difference such as gender preferences.

Further, if you look at the dogma of judgment for early-childhood death cases, it is generally held that a child is blameless (and thus still in a state of grace) for a while after birth. If a child born with Down's Syndrome or Spina Bifida or Phocomelia is accepted as a blameless child, why is a child born with the plumbing/wiring mismatch condemned? God made that child as well as any OTHER child. So what's the problem?

 

[Libre]

I don't see why the question of choice is that important.
Geniuses in science are born with the innate ability to be geniuses - why give them any credit?
Maybe murderers are born with a gene to predispose them to be murders - why condemn them?
Maybe every single thing we do in our life is not really a choice - (no, not "fate") but the necessary outcome of our genetics + upbringing, of which we have little to no ability to control or influence.

We measure people by what they actually do - not what they are capable of doing, and not the innate abilities they were born with.

We generally prefer "attractive" folks to "unattractive" ones, despite the fact that one's appearance is superficial and to an extent beyond our ability to manipulate. We're all the time admiring celebs for their talent - they may have worked hard but we're all working hard, or most of us. They just have a talent + luck + work + connections + being in the right place at the right time.
For some homeless bum - all the above except in the other direction.

Don't you think that Usain Bolt and Michael Phelps were predisposed at birth for great athleticism? Lucky for them, running fast and swimming fast are things people care about (for some reason). But it's likely that they were simply unwitting recipients of beneficial genetics for running and swimming, fortunately born into a conducive environment for these activities - parents and coaches who encouraged them, and so on.
Charles Manson inherited a different set of genes, and probably upbringing.
We put medals on some and imprison others.

To people who find the idea of same-sex relationships repellant, it matters little whether it's a choice. It's become central to the debate but I believe it really is secondary. So what if it's a choice? Don't we support the idea of freedom of choice?
To those who subscribe to the gay life-style - they just want to be able to live the life they want. But we set up this huge question about choice or no choice as though settling it for sure would finally end the debate. Far from it.

 

[Frothingslosh]

Choice comes up because the godbotherers' condemnation of homosexuals is based on the erroneous assumption that LGBT individuals CHOSE to be that way; that they somehow made some decision that they wanted to be gay, be abused, be outlawed, hunted, and murdered because they want kinky sex. After all, the Bible says that homosexuality is wrong, ergo it's a fundamental truth to them that Homosexuality Is Evil, and everyone, in their twisted version of reality, knows and understands that. The godbothers cannot even grasp the concept that anyone can inherently be different than they are, and thus those disgusting gays must have CHOSEN to reject God's teachings and have gay sex out of either sexual deviancy and perversion, willful embrace of evil, or both.

As long as the god-botherers keep screaming about LGBT people 'choosing' to be gay, the argument over choice is going to continue.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Frothy - you beat me to the reply. To those who accept homosexuals as just variations on a theme, there is no problem. It is the hard-nosed religious types who cannot get past their bibble-dribble that paints all homosexuals as willful sinners. My post was at least in part aimed at that crowd - but anyone who doubts the factual nature of the physiological differences should perhaps at least briefly take a look.

I'll separately thank you, Frothy, for your comment.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Libre - the problem about choice or physiological challenge is that too many people in our society treat it as an automatic criminal condemnation.

We are supposed to hold certain truths to be self-evident - that all Men (mankind) are created equal. This is usually taken as "equal before the law" but it isn't always treated that way. Otherwise, why would some states (of which I'm sad to say that Louisiana is one) have laws that treat vaginal, oral, and anal contact as different crimes - and impose different penalties? If husband and wife (traditional marriage) indulge in these different styles, they are just a "kinky couple" - but it took the U.S. Supreme Court in their "Lawrence vs. Texas" decision to keep the states out the bedrooms of consenting (but non-married) adults. It took SCOTUS to dissolve the barriers to same-sex marriages being recognized as a formal relationship.

What equally chills me - and I hope that the US Congress sees the truth before they take it too far - is the First Amendment Defense Act (still being considered in committee) that would allow people to use religious excuses to continue to discriminate against gays with impunity. The Tennessee clerk who refused to grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples would not only be able to refuse but could not be punished for not doing her job. The way the law is worded, it would even allow IRS agents to refuse to process tax returns from same-sex couples.

It is THIS kind of religious insanity that HAS to stop. Either we believe that all are equal before the law or we allow the forces of religiously-induced ignorance to rule the world. It isn't just the USA and gay rights. Take a look at how ISIL executes Christians and how Islamic fundamentalists actually punish and terrorize children for daring to try to get a secular education. Religion can't allow itself to be challenged - which is why it HAS to be challenged. Religious extremism - regardless of the denomination - is the greatest threat this planet has to real progress, to real peace, and to real improvement in the human condition.

 

[Libre]

Choice comes up because the godbotherers' condemnation of homosexuals is based on the erroneous assumption that LGBT individuals CHOSE to be that way; ...
As long as the god-botherers keep screaming about LGBT people 'choosing' to be gay, the argument over choice is going to continue.

The point of my post is that there really is no debate about choice.
It's irrelevant - it's just a handy, clearly phrased question that is easy to take a position on - even though most people have no actual knowledge about it.
To prove my point, imagine that definite proof was found that either confirms or dispels the theory that homosexuality is a choice.
Do you think that the arguments would stop, that formerly staunch anti-gays would become supporters, or that gay-rights activists would suddenly renounce the error of their ways?
It has nothing to do with whether it's a choice.
Personally, I have no idea whether it's a choice or it isn't.
Gay people say it's not a choice.
Drug addicts say their affliction is not a choice.
Gambling addicts say their affliction is not a choice.
We can sympathize with them but when a pedophile says their sexual orientation is not a choice we still vilify them and put them on blacklists.

People have no choice about what skin color they have but there is still all kinds of race bias.

The question of whether a behavior is a choice or an innate predilection really doesn't count for much - we just act as though it does. What really matters is if the person's behavior is acceptable to society at large or not. Murder is generally unacceptable - we don't even discuss if a murderer "chooses" his lifestyle - because we don't really care, in that case.

And maybe that's right - who really cares about the inner battles that the killer may have fought with himself? We care about the deceased and their family. But - if we ever want to solve some of these problems or at least understand them, we may need to take a broader view of crime and "abnormal" behavior.

What we do, is we pick our battles and our sides based on the confirmation bias of all our previously stated positions and beliefs, and also what everybody else is saying - people like "US". Then we form a position. Now that we have a position, we look for support. We do this by reinforcing the facts or theories that agree with us, and ignoring or disqualifying the ones that don't. It should be the other way around - hey, I found out this and that, and based on what I've learned I've formed an opinion. But it often works the other way. I have an opinion that reaffirms all my other opinions - now I'll find support for it.
If it were the way it SHOULD be, then people would be willing to change their attitudes when something new is discovered. What happens instead is that, those that agree with the new finding will champion it, those whose positions are weakened by it will disavow it.
Choice of sexual orientation is one of those things.
Our wants and desires may not be a choice (although they may well be).
Our conscious behavior (with whom we are having sexual relations) is usually a choice.
Then the question is really not whether the gay lifestyle is a choice, but the motivation to have it - a very different question.

 

[Frothingslosh]

The difference is that people who hate others based on their skin color or race don't accuse those they hate of CHOOSING to be black, white, Native, or whatever.

You're coming across as trying to argue that LGBT people are the ones bringing choice into the discussion, but the fact is that they are trying to get the bigots to understand that you don't choose to whom you are attracted.

You claim that you don't know if it's a choice or not, but that's easy to determine. Please explain why, where and when you chose to be straight and to find only women attractive.

 

[Libre]

The difference is that people who hate others based on their skin color or race don't accuse those they hate of CHOOSING to be black, white, Native, or whatever.

Exactly my point. They hate them anyway - it doesn't matter that they didn't choose their color. Choice is not at the root of their hatred. Probably the same haters, and for the same reasons - something threatens their conception of how things SHOULD be, or the way it USED TO be - in their minds.

You're coming across as trying to argue that LGBT people are the ones bringing choice into the discussion, but the fact is that they are trying to get the bigots to understand that you don't choose to whom you are attracted.

You claim that you don't know if it's a choice or not, but that's easy to determine. Please explain why, where and when you chose to be straight and to find only women attractive.

Everything we do is a choice at some level.
Even many things we just desire - we chose that desire.
Mind you I'm not saying ALL our attractions are consciously chosen - but I think many are. We desire to actually be who we think we are. We adopt our preferences based on that.
Don't make me out to be some homophobic Kim Davis or Southern Babtist. It has zero to do with whether or not I approve of the gay lifestyle.

It's very simple: to whom we are attracted may or may not be a choice, whereas conscious, willful behavior - for example with whom we associate - is a choice.
If sleeping with a person is not a choice then neither is murdering someone.
Your confirmation bias is preventing you from understanding what I'm saying.

 

[Mike375]

Adding one extra segment every ten thousand generations, a million years would be more than enough for the thorax to entirely dominate the body. Yet every generation remained fit for its environment with ten thousand generations in between to adapt to the small changes.

Can you see a snake ultimately emerging from what was originally a lizard?

As I posted earlier I can accept your outline as possible and accept the body organs, especially the lung situation to also move along.

However we still have major hurdles and this is in respect of surviving the transition period.

Generally the lizard has a very powerful crushing bite. It tends to take prey size that can fit close enough to its mouth, although length of prey will often exceed length of jaws. The prey is basically crushed to death or sometimes only half dead and swallowed whole. The crocodilians are the same until they reach a considerable size and then things are different.

The snake on the other hand probably has about the lowest bite force of any animal in relation to its size. Most people of course are aware of the venomous snake and the constrictor. Two other methods, one being common with the large family of colubrid snakes. These snakes have saliva that is venomous and they typically eat amphibians and also fish and the venonmous saliva permeates the skin and of course with the frog that is very quick. Other snakes grab prey and because of their head structure the snake basically smothers the animal.

Basically we have two complete opposites. As to the constricting snake I will say that can be matched by the lizard that evolved along the lines you posted.

For the sake of the discussion I will accept your evolving lizard develops the modified saliva to become venom and also develops the fixed fangs as found in the elapid snakes. However, getting to the greatly oversize retractable fangs of the viper would be interesting.

However, I see great problems during transition from the powerful crushing bite to a bite with very little force but of course that very small bite force is not required for the snake.

Accepting your outline of developing the 100s of vertebrae there is something else that needs doing and that is the total change in belly scales. I can tell you from hands on experience the mobility of the snake compared to a similar size legless lizard is like comparing a Formula 1 to a Toyota Corolla.

It is my understanding (which could be wrong) that evolution does not have a goal. So what sort of actions/events etc. would cause a total change in belly scales of the "new lizard" to those of the snake.

I am only guessing but I suspect one solution to surviving the transition period could be the available prey is very easy to take so that a "half lizard half snake" could manage OK and of course their food requirements are very small.

As far as the modern lizard and snake are concerned their efficiency or success rate at catching prey could be dramatically reduced and they would survive with ease. Apart from them having an extremely high success rate in terms of "attempts" Vs "success" they can consume a huge amount in one meal as compared to the mammals.

A lot of evolutionists run on the mutation line so we have an "overnight" change but as you have already mentioned mutations tend to range from useless to bad. However, perhaps 1 in 1,000,000 is enough. As to transition I believe/think that as just mentioned that would need a situation where the prey/food situation was very easy to eat or catch etc. and so a very inefficient animal could survive and especially a cold blooded one whereby total food requirement is very small.

As an aside what are your views on the intelligent design people's pin up star, the Bombardier beetle.

 

[Libre]

I don't think it's really necessary to explain every variation in every species and their ancestors as well as their descendants - as long as the overall process is accepted and comprehended. Getting from one number of belly scales to another - or exactly detailing all the morphological differences between ancestral species and modern ones may be of interest to zoologists and paleontologists, but for most people an understanding of the overall process is what's important. Nothing you've stated about snakes and lizards negates any principles of natural selection so I don't see where it's full of holes.
Another thing - when you speak of "transitional species" - we're all transitional species, undergoing an extremely slow process that can't be observed except through the passage of time, the minuscule variations from generation to generation, and the process of adaptation.