Captivity?

[Santa]

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!"

 

[Serpwidgets]

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.

 

[Santa]

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.

 

[TrpnBils]

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.

 

[Santa]

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

 

[gardenmum]

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.

 

[gardenmum]

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.

 

[jazzgeek]

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")

 

[TrpnBils]

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.

 

[TrpnBils]

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?

 

[Clint Boyer]

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.

There are fossil remains of a homonid that they named Lucy.

She seems to show traits somewhere between apes and man.

This is what would also appear to be the "missing link".

There is no mention in Creationism that would explain this hard piece of evidence.

 

[Serpwidgets]

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

I agree. That is the difference between dogma and fact. Dogma cannot stand on its own and must be repeated in order to be accepted as "true." Objective facts stand on their own. It is true no matter what you or I say, or whichever semantic argument you want to try to use.

It is still a factual, real-life process that indeed has taken place, is taking place right now, and will continue to take place as long as life continues to reproduce/compete in the ways it has and does. Your willingness to unbelieve it does not keep it from being a fact, either.

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.

The process I outlined is known, and is rather simple. There's nothing mysterious about how it works. If you want a provable "missing link" between species then take a look at creamsicles and jungle corns. :eatpointe

Corns are not the same species as either emoryi or california kings. The multigenerational hybrids between these groups prove that many of the inbetween states are also viable. It is proof that it is possible, through accumulated changes in a genome, for something with the genetic makeup of a california kingsnake and a cornsnake to have a common ancestor.

 

[jazzgeek]

Thank you.

You're very welcome. My pleasure, matter of fact.

I'm glad somebody has finally said this about the "common" definitions vs. the "real" definitions of some of these terms.

Well, "real" to the scientists. I'd prefer to think of it as "common" and "professional" (for lack of a better word....which again, shows the limits and ambiguity of language (then again, so do "smilies"...(I wonder - how deep I can embed parentheses without annoying everyone?) ) ).

Every profession has their own dialect. To Tyra Banks, "modeling" has to do with a photo shoot. To me, it has to do with diagramming data. Go figure.

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 haven't received that good a compliment since I was told that I don't sweat much for a guy my size. :laugh:

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.

Onward and upward, with a little bit of wringing of hands, gnashing of teeth, and hopefully, a whole lotta laughing and learning.

Just like the scientific process, ideally.

regards,
jazz

 

[gardenmum]

Here is a link to "Lucy Fails test of missing link"
http://search.netscape.com/ns/boomf...ner.com/forerunner/X0714_Lucy_fails_test.html

But here are some of the exerpts from it.......

But hold on, the story gets better. Dr. Johanson gave a lecture at the University of Missouri in Kansas City, Nov. 20, 1986, on Lucy and why he thinks she is our ancestor. It included the ideas already mentioned and that Lucy's femur and pelvis were more robust than most chimps and therefore, "could have" walked upright. After the lecture he opened the meeting for questions. The audience of approximately 800 was quiet so some creationists asked questions. Roy Holt asked; "How far away from Lucy did you find the knee?" (The knee bones were actually discovered about a year earlier than the rest of Lucy). Dr. Johanson answered (reluctantly) about 200 feet lower (!) and two to three kilometers away (about 1.5 miles!). Continuing, Holt asked, "Then why are you sure it belonged to Lucy?" Dr. Johanson: "Anatomical similarity." (Bears and dogs have anatomical similarities).

After the meeting, the creationists talked with Dr. Johanson and continued the questions. Dr. Johanson argued that homology (particularly DNA homology) is good proof for evolution. Tom Willis responded that "similar structures nearly always have similar plans, (like) similar bridges have similar blue prints." After more discussion along this line, Dr. Johanson gave this amazing reply: "If you don't believe homology, then you don't believe evolution, and evolution is a fact!"5

Tom Willis, the creationist who attended the U. of Missouri lecture puts it this way, "By any reasonable standards, Johanson misrepresented the evidence and he did so for money! A businessman who made claims like those to sell his products would be charged with fraud rather than be paid an honorarium."7 Regardless of the motives involved for finding our evolutionary "ancestor", we can be sure that when Lucy is acknowledged as an evolutionary dead end, there will be another press conference with another knee-jerk explanation.

And from another source......

“Lucy” is the popular name given to the famous fossil skeleton found in 1974 in Ethiopia by American anthropologist Donald Johanson. To many people, Lucy is regarded as some kind of link between ape-like creatures and humans, thus supposedly proving evolution.

But is Lucy really a pre-human ancestor?

According to Richard Leakey, who along with Johanson is probably the best-known fossil-anthropologist in the world, Lucy's skull is so incomplete that most of it is “imagination made of plaster of paris”. Leakey even said in 1983 that no firm conclusion could be drawn about what species Lucy belonged to.
Anatomist agrees

Reinforcing the fact that Lucy is not a creature between ape and man, Dr. Charles Oxnard, Professor of Anatomy and Human Biology at the University of Western Australia, said in 1987 of the australopithecines (the group to which Lucy is said to have belonged):

“The various australopithecines are, indeed, more different from both African apes and humans in most features than these latter are from each other. Part of the basis of this acceptance has been the fact that even opposing investigators have found these large differences as they too, used techniques and research designs that were less biased by prior notions as to what the fossils might have been.”

Oxnard's firm conclusion? “The australopithecines are unique.”
Not ancestor to humans

Neither Lucy nor any other australopithecine is therefore intermediate between humans and African apes. Nor are they similar enough to humans to be any sort of ancestor of ours.

A new species of autralopithecine, Australopithecus garhi, was discovered in 1999 in Ethiopia. Even though this ape was said to be more long-legged than Lucy, it is still just an ape.

Lucy and the australopithecines show nothing about human evolution, and should not be promoted as having any sort of “missing link” status. The creationist alternative, that humans, apes and other creatures were created that way in the beginning, remains the only explanation consistent with all the evidence.

 

[Clint Boyer]

Those are all opinions.

The fossils remain with no explaination in creationism.

 

[Serpwidgets]

Once again an evolutionist has...

BTW, even though it may be convenient for you to pigeonhole people so that you can fling epithets at them, I am not an "evolutionist."

I know that the theory of evolution is a possible explanation for the diversity of life as we see it.

I know that creation is a possible explanation for the origins and diversity of life as we see it.

I know that neither of these things preclude the other. They can both be true at the same time.

The only people who think evolution and creation are mutually exclusive are people who do not understand what evolution means and what the theory of evolution entails, and people who choose to believe a certain interpretation of the Bible.

 

[CAV]

A review of the 12 known "homonids" that are currently in "existence".

Of the 12, nine of the "hominids" reconstructed by evolutionists, have been found to be fully monkeys/ apes and not part human at all:

1. PLIOPITHECUS: Ramapithecus, was shown to be that of an extinct relative of the orangutan. Pliopithecus was placed on the chart before Ramapithecus because it seemed more monkey-like. Pliopithecus was named as a hominid because it looked like a cross between two monkeys, the spider monkey and the gibbon, not because it looked part human.

2. PROCONSUL: Same as above.

3. DRYOPITHECUS: Same as Pliopithecus and Proconsul. It is based only on a lower jaw fragment which later became known as that of an extinct ape's.

4. OREOPITHECUS: Same as Pliop, Procon, and Dryop, It is based only on teeth and pelvis remains.

5. RAMIPITHECUS: Fossil finds in 1982 and 1988 showed that Ramipithecus was only an extinct relative of the orangutan and not part human at all. This one is based only on a set of teeth.

6. AUSTRALOPITHECUS AFRICANUS: Was found to be the skull of a baby ape whose features had not yet fully developed. When studied by a team of forensic scientists, it was concluded that the skull had no human features at all.

7. AUSTRALOPITHECUS ROBUSTUS: Based only on a skull with a crest on the top which is a feature in apes but not in humans. The feature does not appear in any supposed hominid skulls before or after it to any degree. Forensic review determined Australo Rob had no human features at all.

8. AUSTRALOPITHECUS BOISEI: Same as Australo Rob. Forensic review determined Australo Rob had no human features at all.

9. AUSTRALOPITHECUS AFARENSIS: (Lucy) Determined to be a "homonid" based on fragments to a skeleton found miles apart and at greatly varying depths and then placed together as if from the same individual. The fragments are small and most of the skeleton missing.


The other three popularly regarded "hominids" have all been found to be modern humans and not part monkey/ape at all.

10. HOMO ERECTUS: Regarded as sub-human because its brain size was once thought to be out of the range of humans being too small. It is now known that its size is nearly the average size of a modern European's.

11. NEANDERTHAL MAN: Found by medical experts to be a full modern human being whose brain was deformed simply by arthritis deformans.

12. CRO MAGNON MAN: Indistinguishable from a modern human being. It was placed on the chart only because of cave drawings that were found and thought to be primitive.

"Missing Link" huh?


Now to Serp's last post:

It isn't that I don't understand evolution or think that it isn't plausible, there is simply a glaring and undeniable absence of scientific evidence to support it.

 

[jazzgeek]

NEWS FLASH!!! Hominid count increases 25% in three hours!! Fossils at eleven!!

7. AUSTRALOPITHECUS ROBUSTUS: Based only on a skull with a crest on the top which is a feature in apes but not in humans. The feature does not appear in any supposed hominid skulls before or after it to any degree. Forensic review determined Australo Rob had no human features at all.

Now currently taxonomically classified as Paranthropus Robustus.

8. AUSTRALOPITHECUS BOISEI: Same as Australo Rob. Forensic review determined Australo Rob had no human features at all.

Now currently P. Boisei.

9. AUSTRALOPITHECUS AFARENSIS: (Lucy) Determined to be a "homonid" based on fragments to a skeleton found miles apart and at greatly varying depths and then placed together as if from the same individual. The fragments are small and most of the skeleton missing.

While "Lucy" was first reported in the mid-70s and was fragmented, the March 31 1994 issue of Nature, one of the oldest (circa 1869) peer-reviewed scientific journals, reported the discovery of the first complete A. afarensis skull.

That's over a decade ago.

"Missing Link" huh?

Well, considering that missing from your jury of 12 peers are:

P. aethiopicus
A. anamensis
A. garhi

one could conclude that "gaps" are being filled at a pretty darn good rate. The paradox, of course, is that when one "gap" is filled, two new ones are created. When those two "gaps" are filled, four are created. And so on, and so on....thus, by logical extension, this geometrically increases the requests by creationists for "gaps" to be filled. :laugh:

(For the record, the points stated here were done by simple Google and Wikipedia searches.)

The other three popularly regarded "hominids" have all been found to be modern humans and not part monkey/ape at all.

10. HOMO ERECTUS: Regarded as sub-human because its brain size was once thought to be out of the range of humans being too small. It is now known that its size is nearly the average size of a modern European's.

Redundant and/or tautological - especially if that EuroBrain is French. (I just may have angered Jerry Lewis.)

Now to Serp's last post:

It isn't that I don't understand evolution or think that it isn't plausible, there is simply a glaring and undeniable absence of scientific evidence to support it.

Ironically, I've cited sources to the points/counterpoints I've raised, while you didn't. I guess I'm to take your points at face value, given the "absence of evidence".

I have a great faith - scientifically and theologically - but it only goes so far.

regards,
jazz

 

[jazzgeek]

It's not just "either-or"....

Lucy and the australopithecines show nothing about human evolution, and should not be promoted as having any sort of “missing link” status. The creationist alternative, that humans, apes and other creatures were created that way in the beginning, remains the only explanation consistent with all the evidence.

Also known as "the fallacy of negation", to wit: If "A" is not true, then "B" must be true. If evolutionary theory were completely wrong, it does not imply that, therefore, creationism is right.

A theory needs evidence in favor of it, and not just against the "opposing" theory. Besides, once you assume Divine Intervention, science goes out the window - since natural laws no longer apply and scientific methodology is moot.

Personally, I believe that science and faith aren't even in the same world. I tend to agree with Stephen Jay Gould's position of "nonoverlapping magisteria", which in essence states that the purpose of religion is to discover the "Rock of Ages", while the purpose of science is to discover the "age of the rocks".

And - IMHO - anyone with a frontal lobe wants and needs to know both.

regards,
jazz

"I'm all for it." - skeptic Michael Shermer, when asked of his position on life after death

 

[countMEout]

The way the theory of evolution works is not targeting a direct population. There is no goal for the human specie or a specie of frog to develop into any particular thing or creature. Evolution is not a process with a beginning and end but an ongoing process. Which will select for the most successful creatures, with that being said for the most part large stable populations that might have a lower rate of competition will then not have as much of a dwindling to their specie. evolution is most seen in small cut off groups of a specie and to be as cheesy as possible darwins finches. The finches on the galapogos islands all haave created their own niche. Due to the relativily extreme environment of galapogos islands population fluctuations can be somewhat extreme. Since each specie has adapted to a certain niche they can flourish off certain seeds and other foods. So what this really means is one of the islands has two finches each eating two different types of seeds they are extreme forms of one another to fit their evolutonary niche this makes them the most successful giving them the best chance to breed. Now on another island there is only one finch but the same types of seeds. Since there is only one finch its beak has adapted to be somewhat average and able to handle both seeds but not as well as the two extreme finches. SO for anyone to think that the point of each organism to survive and have the evolutionary GOAL to become some higher being is foolish and ridiculous. If everything was a higher being there goes the food chain. So either way if evolution is completely natural or inspired by GOD the theory is probably the most accurate way we currently explain the advancement of species. Not everything has to become advanced either and they all don't do it together either its not like humans are going to evolve step by step together. Adaptation is a must and if you cannot adapt or adapt your surroundings to yourself then well your dead. So in the end to think that no specie adapts or changes but to believe in mutations a vital part of the corn snake world. Another good example is the dog show world with all of its selective breeding which alters the genetic code unless you would like to think it is exactly the same as the wolves although it will have a 99% accuracy the same with ahve with some of our close relatives 99% funny to think that 1% can bring you from a tree to some buildings.