In the below thread about temp sexing, we again see science saying a defined statement. The person stated there is no possible way that this event can happen. Of course I have clearly ignored that.
You may wonder why.
With some things science is clearly amazing, except for defining planets. No really, its amazing. But at other times, its about whats happening here. Science confuses the horse and the cart(H&C) In many cases, science is telling an animal what it does by a single part. As in, this part is suppose to do this, So this animal has to do that. Its like a mechanic telling folks how a car will perform by looking at a single part. There is a possibility that its right, but its not likely. Consider, animals have far more parts and these parts are not exactly mechanically connected. In reality they are chemically connected, mechanically connected and the big one, behaviorally connected(and most likely more)
The reality is, science is suppose to explain why something happens, not predict what could happen. Particularly with subjects science knows so little about.
With reptiles, and snake are reptiles, science has not shown or expressed in any way, that it has any understanding how snakes work. Sure science can look at parts and classify what they think a snake is, but clearly thats not been very accurate as they keep changing that.(a good thing)(naming renaming) We the public, would like it far better if science simply admitted they do not know and are simply doing the best they can.(with this naming thing) That way we would not bother to think its right in the first place, and we would except the name changes as progress and not confusion.
So we understand science has a very difficult time simply naming or classifying reptiles, yet it thinks it can tell you what snakes do(how they function). Clearly science has never shown or expressed at any time an ability to do so.
The person below used the term, CATEGORICAL. Well to use it again, categorically, science has not shown any ability to understand how snakes function. Science has been categorically in error in most cases. It is weak in nearly all areas. Particularly in such areas of reproductive biology and behavior.
Or even base day to day behavior, as an example, we field guys know that reptiles often hang out in groups and in pairs, sometimes large groups. IT often appears these groups have a function, this occurs year a round. So as a novice, we call it social(to gather in groups for reasons of benefit) But science says snakes are NOT social. Why do they say that? OH i known, because the model they use for being social is based on buffalos(hoofed stock, african hoofed stock) or humans. Don't get me wrong, I clearly agree that snakes are not buffalos or any other hoofed stock. So there is no way on earth that a snake can be hoofed stock social. But wait, why do they gather? oh we all understand it takes two to tangle, and I am clearly not taking about that. Why do we find males together and females together and sexual pairs together at times other then breeding season? Is there some reason for this? of course there is, but WHAT? is there some benefit for this? there must be. But what? The are acting social. You know, reptile social, but science does not have any names for this. NONE. So they deny it happens. But it does happen.
If science does not even have the tools to tell you what this is called, then what gives you the idea that science knows all that much about the subject of reproductive biology? Science doesn't yet!
As you can see, the above is really a bunch of words to make you think about science(not me) and how much is really known. Not much.
As a person working on the fringes of science(behavior) over the last fifty years I have learned one thing and that is, science has not been all that accurate when it comes to reptiles. One think for sure, science has no handle on reproductive behavior or reproductive biology or any kind of behavior. Science has no successful history in this area. Yet this person says categorically what some are seeing is impossible. Ok, I am starting to laugh.
Simply put, it was non-biologist that figured out how to breed reptiles in captivity, it was non-biologist that have continued to lead in the areas of reproductive biology. I am not saying biologist are not smart, I am saying they must be prejudiced by an unstable base of knowledge. As they are wrong a lot.
But its really not about that, in this case, science is not suppose to tell you, what can or cannot happen. Science is suppose to explain WHAT DID HAPPEN. In this case of temp predicted sex, something is clearly going on, and the benefit of having scientists is, they are suppose to figure out what is happening, not tell us it cannot or did not happen. Particularly when something IS happening.
Now if that person would have said, There is no evidence of temp sexing with snakes, according to whats known NOW. I would have agreed, then I would have pointed out, that what is being discussed clearly shows something is going on that appears to be evidence. More clearly evidence to cause investigation.
After all, just a few short years ago, science said CATEGORICALLY no snakes are parthnogenetic. Yet now they are, my bet is, they were for a long period and that is not new. It was only new to science. I tried to publish that in 1976, but my peers said, it does not happen, but it does. They simply refused to look at the evidence.
With varanids, I can perdictably control sexes. But its after hatching. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm I have been perdictably doing so for over 15 years, I guess according to science I am just real lucky. I wish I could play the lottery with that type of luck. And in Zees case, hes just unlucky. hmmmmmmmm are you sure its luck? thats all I got to say.
Again, isn't it sciences task to define what luck is? Cheers, Rush lim(fr)
