Captivity?

Originally Posted by Serpwidgets

Yes.
Given that captive cornsnakes experience the two above things, they will evolve over time. Given enough time, if they are kept from interbreeding with the wild population, they can most definitely become genetically incompatible with the wild population.

Once again an evolutionist has made a statement of "fact" that can't be proven thanks to the convenient "millions of years" clause in their theory.

You folks have the right to believe what you want to believe. I don't have a problem with that at all. But I will not stand by and allow you to spew out statements like the one above. Yes, a lot of scientist (but certainly not all) believe the theory of evolution. But it is just a theory - not fact.

I don't mind the discussions at all. I think Darwin's work was fascinating. Just don't try to cram it down my throat as fact. Don't use phrases like "most definitely" or "will" without the evidence to prove it.

Not to be insulting, but as an old farmer would say "I don't have to step in BS to know what BS is!"

Originally Posted by Santa

You folks have the right to believe what you want to believe. I don't have a problem with that at all. But I will not stand by and allow you to spew out statements like the one above. Yes, a lot of scientist (but certainly not all) believe the theory of evolution. But it is just a theory - not fact.

You are talking about the theory of evolution, which posits that the various lifeforms on earth have come about as a result of evolution. That is a theory.

I am talking about the process of evolution, which is an obvious consequence of the simple realities of 1- random genetic changes and 2- selection pressure. It is a very real and factual part of the process of life. It is not just a theory, it is an objective fact.

Originally Posted by Serpwidgets

You are talking about the theory of evolution, which posits that the various lifeforms on earth have come about as a result of evolution. That is a theory.

I am talking about the process of evolution, which is an obvious consequence of the simple realities of 1- random genetic changes and 2- selection pressure. It is a very real and factual part of the process of life. It is not just a theory, it is an objective fact.

You can't make it fact by calling it a process.

As I quoted in an earlier post, 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."

We (humans) have domesticated many wild breeds over thousands of years isolating them from their wild counterparts but they are still reproductively compatible, i.e. a cow can be bred with a buffalo, or a dog with a wolf. What we have done by isolating corn snakes thru captivity and interbreeding is eliminate the natural predators which would have consumed the morphs we prize. We have not and will not change the species to an extent that it will not be compatible with the wild species. Once again the evidence does NOT support your so-called facts.

Originally Posted by Santa

What we have done by isolating corn snakes thru captivity and interbreeding is eliminate the natural predators which would have consumed the morphs we prize. We have not and will change the species to an extent that it will not be compatible with the wild species.

I agree... captivity has had an effect on corns, but I don't think there's any way they're going to change so much as to become completely domesticated like dogs.

I am glad that you and I can finally agree on something other than "corns are cool".

I do not need to personally count to a trillion, or have known anyone who has counted to a trillion, in order to know that the number is real. It is a simple consequence of the way counting works. Likewise, the fact that life will evolve over time is a simple consequence of the above two facts.

Well, I hardly think that comparing a known entity like numbers to and unprovable thing like "missing links" is quite appropriate. Mathamatics is a known, of course we know that numbers are infinite, so a trillion and 1000 times a trillion does exist (if someone wanted to take the time to count that high ). But I have never seen a provable, positive missing link to species. Hypothosis on them, similarities between one species and another with people saying one descended from another, but no positive. Especially with Ape to Man. So, believing that man evolved from apes is really something one has to BELIEVE in using the "proof" that the person feels is right. Same goes for believing in Creationism. We take the "proof" we see and believe from that proof.

Not to be insulting, but this is like saying "if gravity is real then howcome the sun, the moon, and clouds and rainbows don't all fall to the ground?" You will never get a satisfactory answer to this question because it doesn't make sense in the context of reality.

We, I don't feel insulted, so that's ok.
But I do want to respond. Let's start with the sun and the moon. Everything out in space is revolving around the sun. Likewise, the moon is revolving around the earth. The reason the moon does not fall to the ground is because it is going so fast past the earth that it ends up missing it and it just continuously goes around and misses the earth. So, it stays in orbit and the orbit stays constant. Now, if gravity were to stop on Earth, the moon would go flying off in a straight line in whatever direction it was traveling at that time. The same thing goes for the earth & sun. The sun's gravity pulls on the earth, the earth's gravity pulls on the sun, but of course, the sun's gravity is stronger. We don't collide because by the time we start falling toward the sun we are past it and begin the cycle again. So gravity does have an impact but cannot make any of the above fall into collision......phew, I'm glad for that...lol.

OK...now the rainbow. A rainbow is comprised of water droplets falling to earth in which the sunlight is being refracted causing the white light to be split into the multi colors we see. The angle between the rainbow and the sun remain the same till the droplets no longer refract the light. There is nothing for gravity to pull on since it is just a visual distortion made by the water droplets that are already falling to the earth due to gravity.

NOW.....Clouds. The clouds density is not heavier than air so gravity has no affect on it. That is untill it coalesces where the water droplets become large enough so the air currents can no longer keep them up. Then the cloud does fall to the earth...in the form of rain.

So, I still contend, there is no "proof" of us evolving from the apes and so on. And both beliefs rely on having faith in that belief.

I agree... captivity has had an effect on corns, but I don't think there's any way they're going to change so much as to become completely domesticated like dogs.

This I definitely agree on. I think we will see a lot of interesting changes in colors and possibly, in some cases, general looks. But I do not forsee a "tame, follow me home" snake, nor one that grows legs.....lol.

Originally Posted by Santa

Once again an evolutionist has made a statement of "fact" that can't be proven thanks to the convenient "millions of years" clause in their theory.

You folks have the right to believe what you want to believe. I don't have a problem with that at all. But I will not stand by and allow you to spew out statements like the one above. Yes, a lot of scientist (but certainly not all) believe the theory of evolution. But it is just a theory - not fact.

I don't mind the discussions at all. I think Darwin's work was fascinating. Just don't try to cram it down my throat as fact. Don't use phrases like "most definitely" or "will" without the evidence to prove it.

Not to be insulting, but as an old farmer would say "I don't have to step in BS to know what BS is!"

And not to be insulting, but once again a creationist has used the word "theory" in a context different than the scientific community. Let's review:

Lay people often misinterpret the language used by scientists. And for that reason, they sometimes draw the wrong conclusions as to what the scientific terms mean.

Three such terms that are often used interchangeably are "scientific law," "hypothesis," and "theory."

In layman’s terms, if something is said to be “just a theory,” it usually means that it is a mere guess, or is unproved. It might even lack credibility. But in scientific terms, a theory implies that something has been proven and is generally accepted as being true.

Here is what each of these terms means to a scientist:

Scientific Law: This is a statement of fact meant to explain, in concise terms, an action or set of actions. It is generally accepted to be true and univseral, and can sometimes be expressed in terms of a single mathematical equation. Scientific laws are similar to mathematical postulates. They don’t really need any complex external proofs; they are accepted at face value based upon the fact that they have always been observed to be true.

Some scientific laws, or laws of nature, include the law of gravity, the law of thermodynamics, and Hook’s law of elasticity.

Hypothesis: This is an educated guess based upon observation. It is a rational explanation of a single event or phenomenon based upon what is observed, but which has not been proved. Most hypotheses can be supported or refuted by experimentation or continued observation.

Theory: A theory is more like a scientific law than a hypothesis. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis.

In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology.

The biggest difference between a law and a theory is that a theory is much more complex and dynamic. A law governs a single action, whereas a theory explains a whole series of related phenomena.

An analogy can be made using a slingshot and an automobile. A scientific law is like a slingshot. A slingshot has but one moving part--the rubber band. If you put a rock in it and draw it back, the rock will fly out at a predictable speed, depending upon the distance the band is drawn back.

An automobile has many moving parts, all working in unison to perform the chore of transporting someone from one point to another point. An automobile is a complex piece of machinery. Sometimes, improvements are made to one or more component parts. A new set of spark plugs that are composed of a better alloy that can withstand heat better, for example, might replace the existing set. But the function of the automobile as a whole remains unchanged.

A theory is like the automobile. Components of it can be changed or improved upon, without changing the overall truth of the theory as a whole.

Some scientific theories include the theory of evolution, the theory of relativity, and the quantum theory. All of these theories are well documented and proved beyond reasonable doubt. Yet scientists continue to tinker with the component hypotheses of each theory in an attempt to make them more elegant and concise, or to make them more all-encompassing. Theories can be tweaked, but they are seldom, if ever, entirely replaced.

Thus, Darwin hypothesized the process of evolution; the scientific community, such as Stephen Jay Gould, through trial and verification, has advanced the theory of evolution. In similar fashion, Einstein hypothesized relativity and quantum mechanics; the scientific community, such as Stephen Hawking and Richard Feynman, through trial and verification, has advanced the theory of relativity and quantum theory.

regards,
jazz
(not standing by while someone else "spews")

Originally Posted by jazzgeek

And not to be insulting, but once again a creationist has used the word "theory" in a context different than the scientific community. Let's review:

Lay people often misinterpret the language used by scientists. And for that reason, they sometimes draw the wrong conclusions as to what the scientific terms mean.

Three such terms that are often used interchangeably are "scientific law," "hypothesis," and "theory."

Thank you. I'm glad somebody has finally said this about the "common" definitions vs. the "real" definitions of some of these terms. I've been trying to figure out how to say this since the whole discussion got started, but I couldn't find a way to say it that didn't sound condescending (and by the way, your way didn't...so that's good). I've tried my hardest not to offend people in this discussion, but I have a feeling it hasn't always turned out that way, so I didn't want to throw something else out there that could be taken the wrong way.

Good call, I'm glad to see this thread going places again.

Originally Posted by gardenmum

This I definitely agree on. I think we will see a lot of interesting changes in colors and possibly, in some cases, general looks. But I do not forsee a "tame, follow me home" snake, nor one that groes legs.....lol.

Regarding the colors. There are still some combinations out there that haven't been able to be created yet (hypermelanism comes to mind). I saw a thread on this topic awhile back but I don't think it was on this site. Either way, it was just mentioned but never really discussed. Why has it been so hard to create these colors so far?