Captivity?

[Itsnowingcorns]

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.

 

[Santa]

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.

 

[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.

 

[Santa]

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! :madeuce:

 

[TrpnBils]

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.

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 [email protected] 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.

 

[CAV]

I love a good debate!

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?

 

[TrpnBils]

me too Cav, maybe I should've been a lawyer?

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.

 

[CAV]

The delta between what is known and what is believed IS FAITH

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.

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.

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.

 

[Clint Boyer]

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?

 

[CAV]

I would think that is obvious

He evolved from a single cell omnipotent deity. DUH!

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

 

[JTGoff69]

Just ever so slightly off topic, and I do not want to get into the debate either way, (though I do have faith in the Creation theory) but a question I have been pondering:

Why do some species of snakes have fangs and use venom to kill their prey, while others who eat the same prey snatch and constrict? Other than expending a little more energy, or starting the digesting process as some venoms do, I don't see the need except for defense purposes. And if that is the case, wouldn't you think all snakes would need venom? Just one of those little things that make me go ?hmmmmm? while you all are debating evolution/creation/adaptation, and purely a thought not meant to debunk anyone's personal feelings. Thoughts???

 

[Santa]

TrpnBils, You are such a hipocrit. Read what you wrote!!!!!

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 [email protected] and we'll do that there. This is not the place for it.
.......
As far as the monkey comment. Nobody ever said "descended from a monkey" except for you.

Real nice, idiot! Now THAT was a personal attack - learn to recognize it! With your personality you will hear it again.

P.S. You failed to mention the name of the "new species" created in the lab by Dr. Miller - because it never happened.

 

[TrpnBils]

TrpnBils, You are such a hipocrit. Read what you wrote!!!!!




Real nice, idiot! Now THAT was a personal attack - learn to recognize it! With your personality you will hear it again.

P.S. You failed to mention the name of the "new species" created in the lab by Dr. Miller - because it never happened.

This isn't a personal attack? I'm done discussing this with you unless you actually have something of value to say to me. You've only been a member here for a day, so I don't really think you know me well enough to determine what kind of personality I have, so I really don't give a **** what you think at this point. I've got better things to do than waste my time with you... everyone else who posted on this topic has so far managed to keep it civilized, avoid name calling, and create an interesting environment, I don't see how it should be so hard for you to do the same.

Miller made amino acids, not a new species.

 

[Santa]

I did not start the personal attacks you did. Don't dish it out if you can't take it.

 

[TrpnBils]

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

Not arguing with you there, I agree 100% which is why I said I don't expect everyone to believe in evolution.

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.

Not necessarily ALL life forms, because sporadic mutations only affect some individuals, not the whole population. This means that if the mutation was somehow beneficial to the affected members (but not deleterious to the others), then they would be given the chance to differentiate. I don't think it's self-defeating because, again, evolution is not a linear process. Just because one thing evolves from another, that doesn't mean that the original will be wiped out. It branches, giving both a chance to survive. Now, if one outcompetes the other, then one species will die off, but that isn't always the case.

What scientific evidence exists that can explain the selective mutation of part of, but not all of, a population?

Mutations don't happen because of selection. Selection happens (in part) because of sporadic mutations.

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

You're right, nobody ever used that word except for me, but that's sure as hell what it feels like. I've kinda got my back up against a wall here because I seem to be the only one arguing this side of it. Creationists can argue the "where's the evidence" part of it without a problem, but if anyone who believes in evolution says "where's the evidence for Creation" then they're seen as a Bible basher and I'm not going to do that to myself. If I wasn't a Christian, maybe I wouldn't care, but I'm not going to say that God doesn't exist because I know that he does.

 

[JTGoff69]

Rings bell.........does anybody have any input on my question? :wavey:

 

[TrpnBils]

Rings bell.........does anybody have any input on my question? :wavey:

I have no idea... it's an interesting question though. I have read stuff about this at some point but I don't really remember much about it. Maybe somebody else can give you some input.

 

[Rich Z]

You are all welcome to have heated and spirited discussions here, but I feel I must warn you that if personal attacks along with name calling and derogatory statements continue, one or more people are going to get booted off of this site. Please consider this as your ONLY warning.
:toiletgra

 

[Sisuitl]

Okay all, as tempting as this whole creationism vs. evolution debate is, I'm going to bite my tongue and try to focus. :licklips: (there was no tongue biting smiley)

Anyway, the domestication of species *can* take place in a very very short period of time. There was a very famous study done in Russia where there was an attempt to domesticate foxes for the fur industry. After a mere 40 years of selective breeding for calmness, not only the behaviour of the foxes changed, their physiology had changed as well. They had floppy ears, shorter muzzles, their coats had gone from red or silver to black and white spotted. They behaved like puppies their whole lives and bonded with their human keepers.

Now, this was really puzzling to the researchers because they had not been selecting for physical traits at all, and none of the traits that showed up were present in the parent stock. After looking into it and doing a bunch of experiments they determined the following:

The change in the foxes' appearance wasn't due to the genes for their appearance being different from a wild foxes "appearance genes". Because they had been breeding tamer foxes, they were producing foxes with less adrenalin, and their genes were for less adrenalin.

If a fox embryo from the domestic strain is supplemented adrenalin, the embryo develops into a normal wild type scaredy fox, with all the physical characteristics of a wild fox.

They concluded that the presence or absence of adrenaline during embryonic development has an enormous impact on the physical appearance and behaviour of the animal.

I have also seen some studies done with dogs and adrenalin supplementing the embryos. From what I remember, the resulting puppies were extremely wolf-like in both appearance and behaviour.

It would be really interesting to do experiments along a similar line with other domestic animals such as cattle and see if they come out looking and behaving like aurochs. From the results of the canine studies my guess is that they would. I am guessing that most, if not all, of our domesticated mammals are simply selectively bred counterparts of their wild cousins who just produce a lot less adrenalin.

I don't know if reptile embryos respond in the same way as a mammal embro does to adrenalin levels during development. My guess would be no, but I could be very wrong. My other guess is that since corns are partly very popular because they are so easy going anyway, is that they probably didn't have a very high adrenalin level to begin with, so we may not see any physical changes as time goes by, since there isn't a lot of alteration of behaviour going on here.

Plus, Santa has a very valid point about his cattle not having changed in 50 years. From what I have seen (being a heritage livestock freak) most domestic mammals haven't changed for the thousands of years they have been in captivity, unless humans caused that change deliberately with a very specific purpose in mind. Take greyhounds for example, they have looked the same since the time of the ancient egyptians. We have no documentation of them ever having been a wolf, or wild, and there are no documented intermediary stages, either in paintings or in actual physical remains. If it actually did take thousands of years to domesticate an animal, we would have found fossil evidence of them in their intermediary stages when we excavate really early human settlements.

Here are some links to the domestic fox experiment of anyone is interested.

http://home.wlu.edu/~blackmerh/jsk/canid.htm

http://www.devbio.com/article.php?ch=23&id=223

The second one has photos of the foxes. You can see what a huge difference in appearance there is after just 40 years of selection.

 

[TrpnBils]

:laugh01: Pretty wild stuff, that's awesome, I never heard of that study before. I think it does a good job of showing the effects of domestication, but like you said, corns are not mammals and are pretty easygoing anyway so it'd be hard to tell if captivity has had an effect on them like the one above. I just glanced over that webpage (I've been studying for my molecular bio exam all night so my brain is shot :headbang: ...but I'll read it in the morning...lol), so it may have mentioned this and I just didn't see it. Can the domesticated foxes still breed with wild ones and produce viable offspring? I'm assuming they can, because I don't see how there could be that much of a change over that short of a time. If so, I think that is a good answer to the original post on this thread. There can be a huge amount of phenotypic difference and still not be a new species. I'm interested to see what some of the long-time corn breeders have to say about this, whether they have any experiences that could show evidence like that study described. I'm new with corns obviously, but non-hybrid matings have only led to differences in color/pattern, right? I don't remember ever seeing anything about major physiological differences from wild counterparts in the offspring, but I could be wrong.