Where does it say (a) the serpent had limbs to begin with or (b) that it lost them? it doesn’t, to be blunt.
God’s curse is just that the serpent, which was always a serpent and not a lizard, will eat dust and go on its belly. Eating dust is clearly figurative (if one insisted on stupid literalism eating dust would directly contradict the command in Gen 1 that all animals should eat only vegetables, so God wouldn’t contradict it!)
And as John Walton helpfully points out, a serpent that is humbled by going on its belly is not doing what arrogant snakes do - rearing up to strike you. The change is of status, not of biology - especially if one can get ones head round the possibility that Genesis is in line with the rest of the Bible in describing a spiritual encounter in a sophisticated literary way, not simply weaving an aetiological story about why snakes don’t have legs, without actually mentioning legs.
Now if that part of the story isn’t aetiological, there is no reason why the rest should be. There’s a strong linguistic and literary case for taking the “pain of child bearing” in relational, rather than obstetric, terms. The story says no more in fulfilment of the biological sense, and neither does the rest of the Bible, but Eve loses her second son to murder at the hands of her first son, whom she loses both to sin and exile, which must be far more traumatic than mere labour, as any mother would tell you.
Likewise, the marred relationships between husband and wife are not biological: you don’t abuse your wife just because males are stronger and bigger, but because you’re a sinner.
The curse on the ground takes longer to unpack (which I’ve done elsewhere), but at the very least no change in the world is necessary for Adam to be expelled from the garden (cultivated, blessed by God’s presence) to the land beyond (uncultivated, in its natural state).
Even if one postulates that the text does describe a special curse on the ground, commentators as far back as Augustine have denied that it means the “invention” of thistles. In fact in Scripture, the elements of nature are uniformly described as God’s servants for governing mankind in blessing or cursing. In the covenant blessings/curses of Lev. 26, for example, God will either keep wild beasts out of Israel when they’re faithful, or send them to attack their flocks and so on when they rebel. Same nature - interacting with man in opposite ways under God’s governance.
Genesis is simply saying the same thing to Adam about thorns - and giving us no particular warrant to extend that curse (a) to all times and places and people (b) to anything in nature beyond difficulties cultivating the ground or even © anything at all beyond “thorns and thistles”.
I have no idea (nor particularly care) what Lamoreux would do, or popular Evolutionary Creation with its tendency to see everything through “modern science” v “ancient science” spectacles.
So instead I’d restate George’s comment more strongly still: “Surely we can’t expect a figurative discussion to have anything WHATEVER to say about biology.”