Captivity?

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.

And yes, this is related to captivity, feeding dead mice is one of the aspects of captivity of corn snakes, yes some people feed live mice so if what you're saying is true then dystocia won't affect them as badly.

Originally Posted by TrpnBils

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.

1) I did not contradict myself. The deer was an example of adaptation not evolution. And selective breeding is also not evolution.

2) I repeated some points intentionally. So what?

3) That doesn't mean it's right either. It is so convenient to dismiss my claims with a simple "millions of years" statement, the same factor which prevents you from proving your precious theory.

4) You "you haven't been around long" with the wise old age of 21.

Santa, if there is no such thing as evolution, where did all the different living species come from? Did they just appear one day? I'm interested in what you believe happened.

Originally Posted by Itsnowingcorns

Santa, if there is no such thing as evolution, where did all the different living species come from? Did they just appear one day? I'm interested in what you believe happened.

I will answer that twice.

First, I will use your own argument. If there is such a thing as evolution, where did the FIRST living species come from? Did it just appear one day? So which came first, the chicken or the egg?

Second, I believe in a theory that has been around much longer than evolution, you might of heard of it, it is called creation. It is found in a widely published book called the Bible.

If you want to believe that you descended from a monkey, go right ahead.
Would you like a bananna?

Have a nice day!

Originally Posted by Santa

1) I did not contradict myself. The deer was an example of adaptation not evolution. And selective breeding is also not evolution.

Nobody is arguing that adaptation doesn't exist, and nobody said that selective breeding was evolution.

Originally Posted by Santa

4) You "you haven't been around long" with the wise old age of 21.

This is a forum for public discussion about stuff that matters. I never said I had all the answers, and if you would read my earlier posts you would see that I'm just trying to explain things in the way that THIS generation of biologists has been taught. If you want to get into personal attacks or talk about how I at least have a background in what I'm saying, email me at jrh312@psu.edu and we'll do that there. This is not the place for it.

The first species? I'm glad you asked. A lot of people that don't take the time to even try to understand evolution assume that people that believe it are saying that species just popped up out of nowhere in a fully functional, multicellular form. That isn't the case. People have been showing at least one possibility about how life arose since 1953 when Dr. Stanley Miller did it in his labs. It is thought that whenever Earth was in a prebiotic state with no life, Earth was pretty well covered in methane. Miller passed an electrical current (which, in the real world would be the equivalent of lightning) through a flask of methane and showed that amino acids could be formed through this process. Amino acids are the building blocks of early life, and it's quite possible that the earliest "life" on this planet was something that we, today, might not even consider living. It was single-celled, and contained only the most basic functions such as reproduction...that's where evolution takes over. The rest of the experiments suggest that Coenzyme A, which is used by every known organism, activated the amino acids, which then started forming proteins.

As far as the monkey comment. Nobody ever said "descended from a monkey" except for you. This claim is from the masses of people that have never studied evolution and just believe what they hear on TV as full truth. I said it before and I'll say it again, evolution is not a linear process.

Nothing "descended" from anything else. Stuff branched off to form new species. That's a completely different thing. I've been waiting for a comment like "if we evolved from monkeys, then why are there still monkeys?" since this discussion started a few weeks ago. I'm rather surprised that it hasn't come up. The thing is, it illustrates the whole branching process nicely so I'll use it as an example. At some point, we split off from a common ancestor. We did not come from monkeys, we just happen to have the same ancestor "millions and millions of years ago" (there I go saying that again...).

I don't really see this whole discussion going anywhere useful anymore. You're a Creationist, good for you. There's nothing wrong with that. I dont' know what I consider myself or what anybody else here considers themself. I go to church regularly, so I'm not going to apologize for my beliefs and I don't think anyone else should either. Let's just agree to disagree and get on with our lives.

Although evolution is widely considered to be a scientific theory, the fact of the matter is that no scientific proof exists which even remotely supports such a theory.

So why should it be accepted as "fact" over creationism?

Originally Posted by CAV

Although evolution is widely considered to be a scientific theory, the fact of the matter is that no scientific proof exists which even remotely supports such a theory.

So why should it be accepted as "fact" over creationism?

Creationism is based on faith, why should we accept that over evolution? I wouldn't expect anyone to "believe" in evolution any more than I would expect anyone to "believe" in the theory of Creation. This could go on an on and on, but it's just going to come back to religion, which is something that has been fought over for as long as there has been religion. Nobody should accept anything as fact unless they believe it themselves, and I'm not saying (and never said) anything to imply that. I'm just defending what I believe, the same as what you're doing. And I think there is plenty of evidence that life forms are evolving if you take the time to look and go at it with an open mind. I respect the full-blown Creationist theory, and I really don't think I'm going to go to Hell when I die because I go to church, pray daily, AND believe in evolution... We all have our own things that we feel strongly about, and this just happens to be one of mine. I just think it's kinda funny that while I respect Creationists beliefs and would never tell anyone that their faith is a lie, these same people flat out telling me that I'm wrong without any possibility that what I'm saying has any validity to it at all.

Originally Posted by TrpnBils

Creationism is based on faith, why should we accept that over evolution? I wouldn't expect anyone to "believe" in evolution any more than I would expect anyone to "believe" in the theory of Creation.

But without any evidence to support it, so to is evolution. Either or requires the same faith.

Originally Posted by TrpnBils

And I think there is plenty of evidence that life forms are evolving if you take the time to look and go at it with an open mind.

Here is where the analytical thought process starts to unravel evolution theory. There is plenty of evidence that life is ADAPTING, not EVOLVING. After all, why would the process of evolution have ever started in the first place if it wasn't unnecessary for the survival of the entire species? If the principle of evolution held true, then ALL life forms would have evolved into higher forms. To say that all life evolved from single cell organisms is self defeating since there are still single celled organisms today. What scientific evidence exists that can explain the selective mutation of part of, but not all of, a population? If rational thought holds true, the very explanation of evolution is fundamentally flawed.

Originally Posted by TrpnBils

I just think it's kinda funny that while I respect Creationists beliefs and would never tell anyone that their faith is a lie, these same people flat out telling me that I'm wrong without any possibility that what I'm saying has any validity to it at all.

I didn't see the word wrong used once except in your post.

I agree, both sides rely on a fair amount of belief or faith if you will.


One question for the creationists, where did god come from?

He evolved from a single cell omnipotent deity. DUH!

I've now changed my mind regarding evolution. This guy looks too much like Quigs......