ok this thread is no longer about snakes but that's ok because some people tend to spout off at the mouth about somethings they have no idea about. First off human genetics are not a luck of the draw. Most genetic traits are passed the same way that the simple recessive, co-dom, and dom genes are in snakes. However, some of the traits us humans have are compiled on top of each other often masking or exagerating them. There was two studies done around 1920 in new york state to test whether or not the tendancy to commit crimal acts and whether feeble-mindedness was able to passed on to future generations. In both studies, there was strong evidence to support the claims. You can look up both these studies. The families were the Jukes and the Kallikaks.

First, if you're going to open your post claiming to correct the problem that "some people tend to spout off at the mouth about somethings they have no idea about," you need to do better than to try to reduce a complicated area of research to two studies. I have two master's degrees, and one thing that years of research has shown me is that things are rarely this simple. I've seen learned professors and researchers have heated arguments about complicated topics because both insisted that the other's results couldn't be right. I've spent plenty of time with grad students who were involved in those studies. They were doing experiments that yielded one kind of repeatable results for them. When the same experiment was repeated at another university, the other grad students saw different results. While my area is metallurgy and not sociology, I've read enough about social issues to realize that the "nature versus nurture" debate around crime is not as simple as your post seems to claim. The tendency towards "feeble-mindedness" is probably less controversial. Some forms of mental retardation obviously have a genetic origin. However, your attempt to refute what I said with this line of argument is weak.

Secondly, I realize that human genetics passed on in the same way that animal genetics are passed on. My point was and remains that very few people marry for the purpose of breeding specific genetic traits into their children. People are complicated enough that doing so would be difficult as well as morally repugnant. As I said in a previous post, most people who have extraordinary talents have those talents because they were lucky in the genes that they received. They were not bred to have extraordinary talent, intelligence, or looks.

No one is disputing anything that you have said about dog breeding. The original poster's point was that for most of us, the difference between the dog that matches the 18 inch withers of the standard and the dog that is 21 inches at the withers is irrelevant. The champion dog has champion genes, and those genes make him more valuable to dog breeders. They don't make him more valuable to the rest of us. The original poster didn't address whether all dog show enthusiasts were in it for the money. I certainly don't believe that all of them are in it for the money, and I wouldn't be all that bothered if they were.

No one is disputing that genetics will determine which snakes meet the demands of the market at any given time. The original poster seemed to be offended that the market sustained such high prices for some snakes. I'm not offended at that situation. I think it's great that some people have the knowledge, the talent, the eye, and the patience to produce some of the animals that I've seen on these forums. I'm happy for them to receive what the market will bear in compensation. My point was that the analogy between snakes and people is flawed. An absolutely stunning pastel exists because someone bred that pastel's parents specifically to make an absolutely stunning offspring. A person of extreme beauty or talent isn't likely to have been bred specifically to produce a child with that beauty or talent.

As I said previously, the analogy strikes me a little strangely, and I believe that the analogy is flawed. It's unfortunate that so many people are upset that I didn't like the analogy. It's likewise unfortunate that they jump to so many wrongful conclusions about the points that I made in explaining my views on this analogy.


Bill
-----
It's not how many snakes you have. It's how happy and healthy you can keep them.

[ Show Entire Thread ]