I didn't want to necro up the evolution thread, but I found something very shocking:
http://www.khoavo.com/nature/2010-11-28/two-heads-four-feet-snake-caught-in-china/
and this:
http://www.weirdworldfacts.com/snake-with-a-foot-found-in-china/
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-82092.html
http://rehpics.blogspot.hu/2011/07/evolutionary-snake-with-foot-discovered.html
(the second might be a skink, though)

Some of us regard evolution as partially heretical while others deem it completely heretical.
It was firstly deemed plausible in regards of compatibility with the Catholic Faith by Pope Pius XII.

But the problem is that most of us are completely against it. Even the SSPX does condemn it.
Also, the problem is worsened by the fact that Pius XII, while non-Concilliar, had his own set of faults, like the easing of the ban on Chinese superstitious practices (was is just?) and the liturgical changes of the 50's (which were mostly realized by Communists and Masons).
So, what does a snake with a foot mean for us? Does it mean that we have to heed the advice of Garollous Karolus?
Unless snakes before the Fall had feet (which is unlikely since the punishment of Satan is not the same as rendering snakes unable to walk), our concerns are right since it can prove macro-evolution.

Mutation? To include a part from a different animal?
Also, I have to ask: does a Tradcat have to profess that animals are mosty static in origin?

And the one found in China? I think that skinks are not native to China.

A snake, huh?

When was the last time I heard about a deceptive snake?  Hmmmm.....

The one with one foot looks like a stereotypical snake.

@2Vermont Did you mean that snake in Genesis? Since a lot of things are to be taken symbolically in Genesis, we can't help but wonder whether had the devil taken the form of a snake to seduce Eve.

@2Vermont Did you mean that snake in Genesis? Since a lot of things are to be taken symbolically in Genesis, we can't help but wonder whether had the devil taken the form of a snake to seduce Eve.

Evolution is intrinsically materialistic, matter and energy, nothing more.  Evolution says that you, me, and everyone else, are "molecules in motion," nothing more.  Your brain produces "you" in the same sense that your liver produces bile, nothing more.  When you die, you will cease to exist, or so says evolution.  If evolution is true, then you have no will free, but every action you commit is the result of, "My neurons made me do it!" or so says evolution.  Committing murder, having sex, winning a race, or, in the case of a priest, consecrating the sacred Eucharist, is just rearranging molecules, except, for the latter, which the evolutionists deny.

Of course, if there is a spiritual side to our existence (such as in the case of the Most Holy Eucharist), then evolution is DOA.  An eternal, immortal soul destroys evolution, because neither mutation via natural selection (aka, "descent with modification") could ever produce an eternal, immortal soul, or a Heaven, Hell, or Purgatory.  If those places exist, then they must have been created, and of course, folks have gone to all three and have come back from "death's door" to tell we living people about it.

So, evolution cannot be true, because it cannot explain the afterlife, why human consciousness survives the death of the human brain.

But did he approach Eve in the form of a snake?