Recently I consulted an Academic(think tank guy) multiple PHD's about some of these problems. I mentioned the, not to prejudice an observation, and his eyes lit up. He said, that was the hardest thing to teach(his students are post doc) he said very few learn that. Its the most important lesson in science.
Ok back to this, as a keeper, I know there are variations in clutches in leucistics, variations in albinos, in melanistics, etc. I personally could give a frog the explination behind it. My/our(keepers) interest is, it occurs. That is the reality. The academics behind why is mostly assumption. Nothing wrong with that. if that is all you have. But its not all we have, we have the real thing, the real deal, we have the animals and what they actually do. That's my interest.
Take the punnett square you guys are so fond of. It predicts tendencies, not fact. Its not accurate and is never actually, not in percentage or results. For instance it cannot predict new morphs that occur from breeding known morphs. Which occurs all the time. Yet, its your bible.
The difference between you and I is simple, I research. I compare the results to the academics. If they do not agree, then the academics are required to change to meet the results. You as a casual fan, believe in the academics. That professor I consulted mentioned that. When results/field reports differ from our theories/hypothesis, we are obligated to adjust our theories/hypothesis. What's interesting here is, you make it about right or wrong. There is no place in science for your approach. Yours approach is that of lowly newbie. In fact, your a puke kid, FR your wrong your wrong your wrong. What makes you a punk kid is, its not about me. Its about the hognose. Are they wrong. My interest is ethology, not chemistry or genetics.
Think about this, your right, I know so very little, on a scale of 1 to 100. Our science, we as keepers, and Me as an individual, are all the way up to, nearly one.

[ Reply To This Message ] [ Subscribe to this Thread ] [ Show Entire Thread ]