Captivity?

[Charlie]

Okay, I wasn't sure if this is where I should post this but someone will let me know otherwise.

Do you think that captivity has had an effect on cornsnake? What are anyones thoughts on evolution and how it is effected by captivity? Will corns in captivity evolve or does the captivity inhibit it?

Thanks

 

[kyocera]

I think that we can attribute all of the wonderful color morphs we have today to captivity. What kind of evolution are you speaking of? I think that corns in the wild have evolved to perfection for the areas they live in already. Not much evolution left. I think that we could probably create smaller or larger corns through selective breeding in captivity though.

Kyo

 

[TrpnBils]

Okay, I wasn't sure if this is where I should post this but someone will let me know otherwise.

Do you think that captivity has had an effect on cornsnake? What are anyones thoughts on evolution and how it is effected by captivity? Will corns in captivity evolve or does the captivity inhibit it?

Thanks

Well, I can't tell you about corns in captivity exactly since I don't have mine yet, but I can tell you about evolution. Corns in captivity MAY evolve to be more domesticated (kinda like dogs did) but it would literally take thousands, if not millions, of years. The dogs we have in our homes now are bred so far out of the wild (and most breeds have been bred for a specific trait or two) that, although they still have wild instincts, they're extremely different from their wild relatives. Put the Taco Bell dog up against a pack of grey wolves and see who survives the longest.

But anyway...

As an individual snake is concerned, I'm sure that captivity does have some effect on them, especially if they were wild-caught originally. As far as the species itself is concerned, I'm not really sure how long they've been bred in captivity, but I can just about guarantee that they haven't evolved because of it. Sure, a lot of people will tell you that captive-bred snakes may be calmer, have more diverse genetics, and adjust to F/T mice better than their wild counterparts...and I would agree with that completely. But the thing to remember is that it's not because of evolution. The breeders breed for these traits, and after so long of doing that, most of the CB snakes show similarities. I'm not saying that a WC corn wouldn't calm down or do any of those other things, I'm just saying that if you have a snake that has been out of the wild for several generations, it'll probably happen easier.

I don't know if that helped or just made things more confusing, but I hope somebody gets something out of it.

 

[TrpnBils]

I think that we can attribute all of the wonderful color morphs we have today to captivity. What kind of evolution are you speaking of? I think that corns in the wild have evolved to perfection for the areas they live in already. Not much evolution left. I think that we could probably create smaller or larger corns through selective breeding in captivity though.

Kyo

Ok, I have to say something else...lol. Evolution is something that has always interested me, and I've taken classes in Evolutionary Analysis and Evolutionary Genetics among other things, and my professors have all been VERY uptight about how people use the term "evolution", and for good reason, so it's kinda been pushed off on me I guess. So what I'm trying to say is that I hope I don't offend anybody with this comment, but this is what I've gotten out of three months shy of a bachelor's degree in biology.

I agree with the statement about how we could probably get smaller or larger corns through selective breeding and that they have evolved in the wild to be pretty well suited to their habitats. 100% agree there. They may be suited to their habitats NOW, but not the habitats of 1000 years from now, or maybe even tomorrow for that matter. The one thing I remember more than anything else from my professors is their constant "Evolution doesn't have an end"....meaning that evolution isn't striving towards any kind of a final product. Same with people....we all (myself included) think that we're the top life form on the planet. But put us in a methane and sulfur-rich environment and we'd die. So from an archaebacterium's perspective, we're inferior.

What I'm getting at is that I don't think that there's "not much evolution left". Quite the opposite, actually, because as the climate changes and their environment changes, corn snakes (along with us and everything else) will have the choice to either evolve to meet their new needs, or go extinct. Evolution doesn't take place within a lifetime, just across generations (that's adaptation)....and it takes an insane amount of generations to even show the slightest evolutionary change. So I don't think evolution in corn snakes has stopped, but I also know that we won't be around to see any evolutionary change. 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.

So I really hope that didn't come across as arrogant or rude, but I just wanted you to see what this generation of biologists is being taught. Now maybe I should run away before I get hit...lol.

 

[kyocera]

I agree completely that everything must adapt to new situation, environment, etc. But are we really evolving. You can name any given scenario, and I would call it adaptation, while someone else would call it evolution. Evolution in my mind would entail becoming something else entirely. A corn snake will always be a corn snake. Now or in a thousand years, it will just adapt to whatever nature throws at it, or become extinct as you stated. Darwinians would probably disagree with me though.

Kyo

 

[TrpnBils]

I agree completely that everything must adapt to new situation, environment, etc. But are we really evolving. You can name any given scenario, and I would call it adaptation, while someone else would call it evolution. Evolution in my mind would entail becoming something else entirely. A corn snake will always be a corn snake. Now or in a thousand years, it will just adapt to whatever nature throws at it, or become extinct as you stated. Darwinians would probably disagree with me though.

Kyo

Right, but adaptation and evolution are two entirely different things. Adaptation can happen over one lifetime and to one individual, but evolution happens over generations and happens to entire populations as a whole (because they share the same gene pool, which is why it doesn't necessarily have to happen to the entire species). That's why evolution is never caught up with time. The population is always one step behind, matched to the last kind of environment.

As for thinking that evolution means becoming an entirely different species, a lot of people think that. But if you actually study evolution, you'll see that's not what it means at all. The example I always hear is "if evolution exists, and we evolved from monkeys, then why are there still monkeys?" The reason for that is because evolution isn't changing from one species to another in a linear fashion. Humans and monkeys came from a common ancestor, yes, but we did not evolve from monkeys as many people imply. That's why evolution is seen as a tree instead of a straight line.

I agree with what you said above here - "A corn snake will always be a corn snake. Now or in a thousand years, it will just adapt to whatever nature throws at it, or become extinct as you stated" - except for one point. And that point is just a matter of semantics I think, so you and I may be agreeing on more than we realize. Like I said before, adaptation takes place over a single individual's lifetime, but evolution occurs over thousands or millions of years.

And that's interesting that you brought up Darwinians...am I correct in assuming you consider yourself a Creationist then? It doesn't really matter to me, I'm just curious really because I don't even know what I consider myself. I believe in evolution because it can be seen as hard evidence in the fossil record, but I also go to church weekly and I have been a Christian far longer than I have been a student of biology. So where does that put me? I don't know, and I don't really lose sleep over it because I think the labels of Creationist and Darwinian are really unnecessary because it lumps people into two groups with seemingly set limits when there can actually be a whole lot of overlap in beliefs.

So, I think we're actually agreeing on a lot here, but it may just come down to word choice on your/my part. This has been an interesting discussion for me at least!

 

[kyocera]

I am a Christian, but have a hard time wrapping my head around a seven day "Creation". I am more of a believer in "Intelligent Design" that has happened over more years than I care to guess.

I think you are right that we agree more than we disagree. I have never had someone explain evolution vs adaptation the way you have, and it makes sense to me.

I have also enjoyed this discussion. Thanks.

Kyo

 

[Charlie]

I started this conversation with a friend of mine. We really got into the legistics and stuff with each other. I don't know if I really mean evolution....

This is what gets me...you know how there are several different wild populations of corn in the wild....like the charcoals (A.K.A Pine Island Anerys), and then there are the bloodreds, and the okettee, and the caramels. Didn't all these different populations adapt/evovle to fit their environments? Isn't cpativity a different environment? I guess you could say that they have adapted to captivity through....eating of f/t, less aggressive (though some corns make me wonder if they came from the wild), color,...etc.

All these all adaptions to captivity or are the man made?

just my thoughts....

 

[TrpnBils]

I see what you're saying here...I thought that might have been the angle you were coming from originally. I may have oversimplified some stuff in my last couple of posts, so let me clarify. Adaptation can happen over one lifetime to one individual, but it can ALSO happen over generations. The difference is that evolution NEVER takes place over one lifetime and doesn't happen to just one individual. I also mentioned about how evolution doesn't necessarily mean one species turning into a new species. To me, that view of evolution entails something like Species A evolves into Species B and *Poof* there's no more Species A. That's how a lot of people see it, but that's a linear approach, which is why that doesn't happen that way.

A good way to look at it is like a tree. You've heard of Charles Darwin I'm assuming? His observations of the Galapagos Finches are a good example. Some small part of the South American Finch population migrated off of the mainland to the islands. Let's assume that they bred and, over the years, amassed a huge population on the islands. They're still basically the same kind of bird that came from the mainland at this point. Let's also assume that they all ate one specific kind of seed. As the population grew, that seed began to be scarce. Some of the birds may have longer beaks than others (just like I may have longer arms than you right now - remember they're not all 100% identical) and these birds learn that they can use their longer beaks to reach into cacti and get insects. Birds with thicker beaks also start to eat larger seeds. Over time, those two populations diverge even further (because they breed with each other; i.e. Long to long, thick to thick beaked) and each becomes less like the original population. This is the branching of the evolutionary tree. The original species still exists, but two "specialized" populations are now different enough from the original one that they can no longer breed with it. Interbreeding is one parameter of defining a species. If two populations can't breed with each other then they're not the same species.

So take a look at snakes. Corn snakes are close relatives of rat snakes (a lot of people consider them rat snakes, but again, that's more of an argument of word choice). So if you're one of those people, just put that aside for a second and look at it from this perspective because it's easier to explain it this way.

Assuming that corn snakes are a seperate species from rat snakes (yes, they can interbreed in some cases, but look where I'm going with this), you can see that they had a common ancestor in the recent past (by which I mean probably thousands or millions of years ago). Take a look at two corn snakes now: a bloodred and a caramel. They look different, may not exist in the same geographical area, and have different genetics when it comes to color. But can they still interbreed easily? Of course they can, that's how we get new color morphs. Because they live in different geographical areas and are suited to them doesn't mean they're a different species or that evolution has occured, it's just an example of multi-generational adaptation. If you took a corn snake that's native to the southernmost part of the corn snake range and put it in the wild at the northernmost part of the corn snake range, it probably wouldn't fare as well as the snakes that are native to the northern part of the range.

And I think you're right, corns that have been bred in captivity for many generations have adapted to it (like the examples you gave). Adapted, but not evolved. You can still take a captive-bred corn and breed it with a wild one with no problem.

Does that make sense? I hope so... when i reply here, I don't intend on writing a book every time, it just ends up that way...lol. So I'm sorry if anyone's sick of hearing from me. :blowup:

 

[hediki]

my opinion is that it does effect them, because of all the morphs that we have now and i think that them being captive doesnt alow them to evolve as the should if they were in the wild. since there captive they have no threats almost a constant climate, almost a constant food supply, so they have no need to evolve ther "perfect" as they are.

 

[TrpnBils]

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.

 

[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 .

 

[TrpnBils]

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 .

:cheers:

right on

 

[Itsnowingcorns]

I thank you with a useless post

 

[lozzer]

Your welcome! :fullauto:

 

[Acradon]

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

 

[Santa]

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

 

[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.

 

[Santa]

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. oke: 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. :smash: 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! :grin01:

 

[TrpnBils]

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.

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. :smash: 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.

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.

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/01/27/chimp.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.