Captivity?

So wait, do you honestly believe that your vivarium is the absolute perfect habitat with nothing even the slightest bit out of synch with the snake's natural instincts? No matter how much we try, we can't create nature, and just because you don't see any obvious things changing with captive corns doesn't mean it isn't there. You and I are never going to see evolution of a single species in our lifetime, it takes waaaay too long.

Just wanting to add here, in The Corn Snake Manual, it says cases of dystocia (egg binding) has increased due to captivity. Also I believe that if you released a CB hatchling corn into the wild, it would have just as much chance as any wild corn of surviving, unless it is handicapped from inbreeding. Dogs have been with us for, well, a very long time , whereas corns have been with us what? Fifty years at most? It will take a long time for them to adjust properly to captivity, and they may never do so at all! They're reptiles after all, and do not have the capability, it is so far believed, to show affection like mammals, which is what humans usually want from their pets. I think this will slow their progress to adjusting to a captive environment even more. OK, I'm going to stop now before I rant on too much, and you guys think I'm just full of a load of waffle .

Originally Posted by Itsnowingcorns

Just wanting to add here, in The Corn Snake Manual, it says cases of dystocia (egg binding) has increased due to captivity. Also I believe that if you released a CB hatchling corn into the wild, it would have just as much chance as any wild corn of surviving, unless it is handicapped from inbreeding. Dogs have been with us for, well, a very long time , whereas corns have been with us what? Fifty years at most? It will take a long time for them to adjust properly to captivity, and they may never do so at all! They're reptiles after all, and do not have the capability, it is so far believed, to show affection like mammals, which is what humans usually want from their pets. I think this will slow their progress to adjusting to a captive environment even more. OK, I'm going to stop now before I rant on too much, and you guys think I'm just full of a load of waffle .

right on

I thank you with a useless post

Your welcome!

Well you can't stop evolution. It's simply mutation and whether a corn is in a tank or not makes no difference. Evolution is not to be mistaken for adaption.

As far as captive corns vs. wild corns are concerned I think there is little or no difference. folks I hate to say it but reptiles are no dogs or cats. they are simply driven by instincts and are not in a position to learn in a way as other pets might do. They can however adapt to their surroundings. This is also seen in the Komodo dragons. they were fed by park keepers for a long time and got so used to it that it was hard for them to go back to self feeding when the rangers eventually stop the feeding.

Maybe corns that are fed dead mice all their life would have troubles hunting and killing in the wild. I personally don't think so. captive corns live longer than their wild relatives. This is simply due to the fact that they are pampered. Vitamins, regular food, good temperatures, no cars, vets......and so on.

Other than that there is no difference at all.

my too cents.

Acradon

Originally Posted by Itsnowingcorns

Just wanting to add here, in The Corn Snake Manual, it says cases of dystocia (egg binding) has increased due to captivity. Also I believe that if you released a CB hatchling corn into the wild, it would have just as much chance as any wild corn of surviving, unless it is handicapped from inbreeding. Dogs have been with us for, well, a very long time , whereas corns have been with us what? Fifty years at most? It will take a long time for them to adjust properly to captivity, and they may never do so at all! They're reptiles after all, and do not have the capability, it is so far believed, to show affection like mammals, which is what humans usually want from their pets. I think this will slow their progress to adjusting to a captive environment even more. OK, I'm going to stop now before I rant on too much, and you guys think I'm just full of a load of waffle .

If you read a little more, the theory behind the increase in dystocia is probably related more to the feeding of dead mice, requiring no constriction and no search for food.

I do believe in adaptation and the survival of the fitest. But I can not believe in evolution - there is absolutely NO proof that any new species has evolved from another (less advanced) species. I have bred cattle most of my 50 years and snakes a little less than that. I have yet to see a new species.

As far as CB snakes released into the wild - we have not (and I believe will not) bred away the natural hunting insticts of a corn snake as you correctly stated. CB snakes actually have a higher survival rate because of 1) controlled hatching environment (temperature and humidity) 2) no varmits to disturb the nest or consume the eggs 3) no varmits to catch the young as they hatch and leave the nest and 4) no need to find the first meal.

$.02

2 things here... evolution isn't based on forming a "higher" species from a "less advanced" species, so that doesn't prove anything. Like I said in one of my earlier posts, evolution isn't the concept of moving towards the ultimate species or anything like that because no species is perfectly suited to its habitat (it's suited to the last major change in the habitat). Secondly, considering evolution takes millions of (or at least several hundred thousand) years, I wouldn't expect that you would be breeding a new species of cattle after 50 years. But if you take a look at the ancestory of those cattle, I'd bet you everything I own that they branch off at some point and separated from another species.

Originally Posted by TrpnBils

2 things here... evolution isn't based on forming a "higher" species from a "less advanced" species, so that doesn't prove anything. Like I said in one of my earlier posts, evolution isn't the concept of moving towards the ultimate species or anything like that because no species is perfectly suited to its habitat (it's suited to the last major change in the habitat). Secondly, considering evolution takes millions of (or at least several hundred thousand) years, I wouldn't expect that you would be breeding a new species of cattle after 50 years. But if you take a look at the ancestory of those cattle, I'd bet you everything I own that they branch off at some point and separated from another species.

According to the dictionary, evolution is defined as "Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species." So your first point is invalid by definition. I do agree however that survival of a species is directly related to it's ability to adapt to habitat change.

Secondly, today's cattle were developed thru selective breeding of various species of the genus Bos. They are therefore NOT a new species derived from evolution. Similarly, corn snake morphs have been developed thru selective breeding, and though they may be a different color or have a different marking, they are still the same species.

I have also been a deer hunter for the last 40 years. Deer have adapted to being hunted. When I was a child, you could sit in a tree and a deer would never lookup in that tree. Today, deer will look up in the trees. They have adapted - but they are still the same species.

In addition, since you believe in evolution then explain how man is the only species with morals. You honestly believe the mental capacity for abstract thought just suddenly appeared from a monkey millions of years ago? If that were true, then logically there would be other species as well, not just one. Now while some humans have digressed to a point, no monkey has yet come forward to that degree.

Evolution was Darwin's wet dream and it is still just a theory!

Originally Posted by Santa

According to the dictionary, evolution is defined as "Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species." So your first point is invalid by definition.

I don't know how that invalidates my point...nowhere in the definition does it say anything about a "less advanced" species, as you put it. "Previous" doesn't mean "less advanced" necessarily. I know I posted examples of this same thing in an earlier post with this thread, so I won't bother putting it in again.

Originally Posted by Santa

Secondly, today's cattle were developed thru selective breeding of various species of the genus Bos. They are therefore NOT a new species derived from evolution. Similarly, corn snake morphs have been developed thru selective breeding, and though they may be a different color or have a different marking, they are still the same species.

And? I just said that you're not going to see a new breed of cattle even through your selective breeding. I'm talking about millions of years ago when the ancestors of today's cattle branched off and became what they have...THAT's when the new species formed. Do you honestly believe that the cows you're breeding today are exactly the same as they were millions and millions of years ago? And the whole point you just made about corn snakes not being a different species just because we breed them in captivity...I dunno where that came from because nobody ever said anything like that. In fact, in my second post, you'll see that I said "The traits you that breeders select for (color, size, temperament, etc) are just simple genetics. It's no different than you or I having a different hair or eye color than one of our parents." Selective breeding isn't even adaptation in most cases, we're just picking genes we like and breeding the animals.

Originally Posted by Santa

I have also been a deer hunter for the last 40 years. Deer have adapted to being hunted. When I was a child, you could sit in a tree and a deer would never lookup in that tree. Today, deer will look up in the trees. They have adapted - but they are still the same species.

Yes, they have adapted. You're right. Adaptation doesn't lead to new species, but evolution does, and nobody ever said that the deer evolved.

Originally Posted by Santa

In addition, since you believe in evolution then explain how man is the only species with morals. You honestly believe the mental capacity for abstract thought just suddenly appeared from a monkey millions of years ago? If that were true, then logically there would be other species as well, not just one. Now while some humans have digressed to a point, no monkey has yet come forward to that degree.

I'm not really sure how to address this because, again, evolution doesn't progress towards an ultimate goal. People are no more highly evolved than anything else on this planet. I already talked about this in my second post though, so I won't elaborate on it again. Morals have absoultely nothing to do with evolution. Evolution is a physical/physiological thing for the most part. Morals are just something that people made up because we also have guilt, and you can't deny that other species on this planet feel guilt at some point. And no, I don't believe that the mental capacity for abstract thought just suddenly appeared anywhere. Evolution isn't an EVENT, it's a PROCESS. And there is more than one species... I'm assuming you mean more than one human species??? There were more of them too, but we happen to be the ones that are left. Evolution is not a linear thing. But I already mentioned that in an earlier post. And by the way, I don't know if this is what you would consider "morals" or "higher thinking" in your mind, but I just remembered seeing this on CNN about 2 weeks ago... http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science...fairness.reut/


Overall, I'm not sure what you're arguing about here because most of the points you're making are either being contradicted by you in the same post (i.e. the deer) or they've already been discussed and resolved to an extent in earlier posts by other people. I don't know if you read this whole thread before you started posting (since you haven't been around long, as that last one was your 9th post), but most of what you're saying has already been said...

And yes, evolution is a theory, but that doesn't mean it's wrong.