Reptile & Amphibian Forums

After spending some time on sierraherps (which alternately could just be called Bob’s Amazing Mexicana Site) I decided to dust off some grey matter and invest a bit of time reading the new papers supporting species level classification of the different forms of mexicana.

The short term report is that at this point I still don’t get it! There is enough incongruence to cause me to question the method or discount the conclusions because the sample pools were simply statistically insignificant. Nothing I’ve read so far appears note worthy enough to discount the obvious geographic and morphological relationships between thayeri, mexicana and greeri. I know the argument is made that geographically these populations are currently disjunct but it’s highly plausible that at the peak of the last ice age this was not the case.

A lot of these conclusions also rely on the accepted assumption that mtDNA mutates at a predictable rate but IMHO this is a leap of major proportions. One could alternatively hypothesize that background mutation rates are much more frequent and that mutations are simply not routinely manifest in the general population because the ecosystem is stable and 1) the mutation confers no advantage in the existing matrix and or 2) the mutation confers a disadvantage relative to the general genotype which is specifically adapted to existing conditions. During times of rapid ecological change however this equation would be turned on its head. For instance, as the last ice age faded, even gradual changes to hydrologic weather conditions and vegetative patterns stressed population such that some even became extinct. If one of these happened to be a cornerstone species a more rapid change or perhaps even collapse of a local ecological system might result. During such a time the presences of numerous background mutations would increases the odds that some individuals would have the capacity to exploit the new matrix and initiate new populations in newly created niches. Given this scenario shifts in mtDNA that appear in populations might be less a function of time between significant mutations and more a factor of time between major environmental change.

In this above scenario of rapid ecological change it is also likely that barriers to reproduction that existed between populations in stable conditions would vanish. The resulting gene flow would facilitate the creation of more varied genotypes again increasing the odds that specific individuals would have the capacity to adapt.

Given this view I did not find it surprising that as the climate warmed the more mountainous forms (mexicana and greeri) increasingly diverged from the more lowland form (thayeri). I also did not I find it surprising that some level of integration with triangulum occurred and that the resultant dispersal of DNA would show a relationship between thayeri and milksnakes of the continental US and that central American milksnakes would show a closer relationship with mexicana and greeri. Geography alone make this rather obvious.

What I don’t get that this information seems to indicate that all tri-color kings are more closely associated than we might have assumed but we’ve concluded that despite this thayeri, mexicana and greeri, the three forms at the very hub of the last cycle of adaptive radiation deserve species level status. Like I said I don't get it.

Where did you find these papers, as I would be very interested to read them.

From what I understand there are two different schools of thought on Mexicana. First, that L. m. mexicana, L.m. greeri, and L.m. thayeri are subspecies (not full species). The other, that L. mexicana has no subspecies and thayeri, mexicana, and greeri are all just different color forms of the same species. I have also read papers that claim that the ranges of "mexicana" and "thayeri" overlap, and one paper I read reports wild integrades of thayeri and mexicana. However, with thayeri being so immensely variable, I think it would be difficult to tell just by sight whether or not the snake is an integrade of mexicana and thayeri, and that is assuming that they are separate subspecies and not just different color varients.

Follow the link
Bob's Amazing mexican Site

Informative, but this is the first place in recent studies that I have seen them classified as separate species (almost everywhere the confusion seems to involve whether or not they are subspecies), and even the site says that it was done for convenience, not based on science:

"For the present, we find it more convenient to apply species-level labels to each as a means of facilitating discussion and study. However, definitive assessments of whether each of these forms deserves species rank must await publication of studies presently underway."

I also find it interesting that he does not mention L. thayeri, and instead refers to it as L. leonis. I thought that the subspecies in question are thayeri, mexicana, and greeri. I thought leonis was used to describe the thin banded color form of thayeri.

I must confess that I do not feel educated enough in the fields of biology and genetics to question the validity of the recent papers. I don't believe that a degree in these areas, or a lack thereof, proves expertise. But, I do know a little about Robert Bryson's background as a biologist and his research ,and I do know a little about Bob Hansen's background as a biologist and as editor of Herpetological Review. I would be interested in knowing more about your background, Tony, because you posted a pretty educated response.

I have done a little research, on the side, into biology, phylogenetics, morphology just to quench my curiosity, but feel like I have a lot more to learn before I'm comfortable discussing these topics with those who know so much more than me. It doesn't mean that I don't have my own opinions on taxonomy. I'm just uncomfortable publicly questioning the findings of those who know so much more than me. That being said, I have always had problems with Garstka's paper.

The new research does not yet make recommendations for changes in the current accepted taxonomy. Bob has chosen to treat greeri, mex-mex, and thayeri as species level taxa on his site "as a means of facilitating discussion and study. However, definitive assessments of whether each of these forms deserves species rank must await publication of studies presently underway."

I really respect Bob's knowledge, and field experience, but I am also open to hearing other's opinions, like Tony's. What it gets down to is this question "What is a species?" Biologist haven't agreed on one definition and probably never will.

I’m degreed but must admit that I’m largely self educated on this subject. I might also add that I’ve been profoundly wrong in my observations before!

What I posted was after a first read of a few of the papers and was only in the spirit of the process. As I understand it people put forth papers such as these and others try to punch holes in the conclusions to see if they’ll hold water. It isn’t personal; it’s just one way of testing ideas to see which one deserve further research. Actually Bob listing the mexicana forms as species did have the desired effect of “facilitating discussion”. Otherwise I not sure I would have come away from the first read feeling that the authors were advocating for species status. I’m grateful that Bob provided the links to these papers because the information in them got me thinking differently about tri colors in general. They were great reads even if my brain still hurts!

...but the assumptions put forth in kingsnake taxonomy should hardly surprise anyone.

Historical science is all based upon assumptions.

...like the assumption that isotopes have always decayed at the same rate as we observe in a lab environment. Not possible to verify; therefore, radiometric dating is poor and largely based upon assumptions.

I've learned to breed my kingsnakes and not worry about anyone's taxonomical opinion on it.

Chris

Chris, great point, and well said! Taxonomy is only an elite groups feeble attempt to classify and name every living thing on this planet. Yet they can't even agree on a definition of a species, and weather there should or shouldn't be sub-species. The funny thing is, nature doesn't even follow these rools, or classifications? Taxonomy = O.C.D.
-Phil

"radiometric dating is poor and largely based upon assumptions."

Actually, this is not true. Carbon dating and raiometric dating have been found to be accurate, and is not largely based upon assumptions. Isotopes are known to decay at certain, predictable rates, and have been used to accurately date everything from dinosaur bones to the age of the earth.

Without getting too deep, radiometric dates are not accurate, nor do they even agree typically within million of years of one another.

The elements potassium, rubidium, uranium and samarium decay into the elements argon, strontium, lead and neodymium and based on the time it takes for it to decay, we reverse-engineer a "date" based on that. It's a good idea but the isotopes might not have always decayed at the same rate of speed becuase of the changing atmospheric conditions. This is where the daters hang their respective hats on radiometric dating.

In the eastern end of the Grand canyon, the Cardenas Basalt is covered with lavas that have been "dated" at greatly differing ages using this supposed "good" method.

The potassium-argon isochron dating put it at 516±30 million years, the rubidium-strontium isochron dating put it at 1,111±81 million years and the samarium-neodymium isochron at 1,588±170 million years.

Now, the real problem is when we compare it to the western section of the canyon, where we have the lava flow that at one time overflowed the top of the canyon and jammed up the Colorado river. This could have been recent enough for man to have witnessed it and the same dating methods put that rock at potassium-argon of around 500,000–1 million years and rubidium-strontium of 1,143±220 million years. So it doesn't fit.

Chris

I agree Bob’s site is “way cool”. I read that paper the other day too. It sort of made since but I too had more questions than answers. Now, I am not edumicated in Biology Research like some of you but it would seem a broader base of samples is needed from a wider range of localities. Of course with Thayeri and Webbi it is especially difficult to do that. I did find the links to Milksnakes interesting and something I had not thought of. I guess future researchers still have plenty of Thesis material to work with.

Thanks Bob!
-----
Rick
Never Enough
Reptiles

I jus like dos purdy ones!!
readin all dat makes me dizzy
kinda fun.............kinda scary!!
-----
Surrender Dorothy!

www.crimsonking.funtigo.com

Just Google a little bit of what Tony and Chris are saying in their posts and you pull up a whole slew of anti-evolution/pro intelligent design websites. I'm not going to debate science with these guys because it is pointless. I just want to make it clear their religious beliefs may prevent them from accepting the science behind genetic research. If that is the case, they should just come out and say so.

I AM NOT, REPEAT NOT, AN ANTI-EVOLUTION, PRO INTELEGENT DESGNE NUTCASE. Kingaz your conclusion that I was promoting some pro religion alternative to the papers in question is wrong and insulting and I have no idea how in the world you would get that from my posts.

What I was suggesting is that evolution in this case may have happened faster than generally supposed as in a spasm triggered by drastic environmental change. Punctuated equilibrium as opposed to phyletic gradualism is not a new concept and in this case it might reconcile observed genetic differences and the obvious relationships between mexicana, thayeri and greeri. I hardly think this and the obvious suggestion that the data set was a bit small warrant your insult.

In the furture, I would suggest that before you go online and insult me you might take the time to understand what was posted.

"Kingaz your conclusion that I was promoting some pro religion alternative to the papers in question is wrong and insulting and I have no idea how in the world you would get that from my posts."

"Punctuated equilibrium as opposed to phyletic gradualism is not a new concept and in this case it might reconcile observed genetic differences and the obvious relationships between mexicana, thayeri and greeri."

Punctuated Equilibrium

Your link is to a site that misuses the term for its own agenda. For a general and historical perspective try here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium

or here

http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/PUNCTUEQ.html

Did you come up with anything to refute what was said?

Just curious.

and while I am not a religious nutcase, I do acknowledge the LORD and his son Jesus Christ.

I will pray for you that you will find Him before it is too late.

Chris

I have been wondering the best way to approach this one and I commend you for the way you went about it. Again very well put.
thanks for the comment.
-----
Michelle

I’ll comment on and defend what I said as NOT being Neo-creationism but that is not the case of what you posted Chris. Those dating arguments are old, tired distortions that aren’t worth the time refuting. More dispassionate presentations of the material are out there if you choose to view it.

As for punctuated equilibrium, I looked into it rather deeply to see if I’d unintentionally advanced some kind of pseudoscience. As it turned out the theory is sound and was authored by Dr. Steven Jay Gould whose credentials as an evolutionary scientist are beyond refute. In googling PE, the first four pages showed that 1 in 20 sites were creationist distortions but about twice that many (1 in 10) were to the writings of a few critics of PE theory because they feel that it abets the creationist viewpoint. Given 30% of the links made the suggestion that PE was or supported “creation science” I forgive kingaz for the name calling and am no longer tempted make a reply that would violate the TOS.

Anyway I found no rational to equate PE with creationism or intelligent design and anything I read to the contrary was either “phony rhetoric” or shrill pronouncements of those who spend time commenting on instead of doing basic science. As an author, I’ve always like Dawkins but he in particular, on this issue, comes across as a jealous, ego driven, celebrity intellectual more interested in selling books than the pursuit of truth. Robert Write, the other primary critic from what I gather is a journalist who just jumped on Dawkin’s band wagon.

In one of his essays Dr. Gould discusses the debate that the theory provoked. Relative to the vitriol of his critics, I found his response measured and introspective when he wrote, “the theory became an issue (quite coincidentally) just when creationism reached its acme of thankfully temporary influence. Creationists, with their usual skill in the art of phony rhetoric, cynically distorted punctuated equilibrium for their own ends, claiming that we had virtually thrown in the towel and admitted that the fossil record contains no intermediate forms…….Some of our colleagues, in an all too common and literally perverse reaction, blamed us for this mayhem upon our theory. At least we were able to fight back effectively. Most of my testimony at the Arkansas creationism trial in 1980 centered upon the creationists' distortion of punctuated equilibrium.”

For the entire essay you can go here: http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_opus200.html

On this page you’ll also find links to the worst of the worst critiques of the theory as well as a transcript of his testimony at the AR creationism trials. It’s a VERY good read and it’s from the horse’s mouth.

Incidentally, this deeper understanding of PE has shed some light on the mexicana papers. I’m in the second read now and though I still don’t think that the data was particularly compelling, the author’s conclusions as well as Bob’s decision to grant of species status on his site (if only to promote discussion) are NOT contrary to current evolutionary theory.

Gould is a "religious" person who spends a great deal of his time trying to counter Christians because he has some sort of axe to grind....interesting.....

Again, nothing to refute the fact that rediometric dating relies on two unknowns:

1. the atmospheric conditions have always been constant (they haven't and so says BOTH sides)

2. That radiometric dating has been incorrect before, sometimes by millions of years (case-in-point: the lavas in Hawaii that we watched form and were dated at 1.3 million years)

Tony, I don't want to make you an enemy. I will, however, pray for you as I pray for all that accept modern pseudo-science as fact.

Remember, science started out as a way to study God's creation.

Satan has turned it into something far more sinister. In fact, it has shipwrecked a lot of people's faith and it is a shame.

I love you, man and so does the Lord Jesus.

For further reading, I suggest The Genesis Flood by Henry Morris and John Whitcomb.

Chris

Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.

For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;

And they shall turn away [their] ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

2 Timothy 4:2-4

I don't see you as an enemy Chris but it does seemed we are doomed never to agree on anything! Still I'm glad you found something solid to hang your hat on because it’s done you good and it’s been a great blessing for your family. For my part I'll continue to let science work out the hows of life on this little ball of ours and let religion and philosophy work out the whys.

Neo-creationism is a nonsense term.

There is nothing new about creationism; however, creation is fairly new compared to the nonsense that humanist science would say. About 6,000 years. I have a historical book that would tell you more, if you're interested.

The invitation is always open.

Chris

Evolution is at a point where it really can no longer be disputed. Evolution is scientific fact. Evolution is going on all around us...antibiotic resistance in bacteria is just one good example. Another example can be seen in the more "primative" snakes such as pythons and boas, which evolved from a lizard ancestor and still retain the spurs which are remnants of limbs. More advanced snakes, which evolved later, such as colubrids have evolutionarily lost those vestigal limbs.

Advances in genetics and genetic testing also confirms what evolutionary biologists have been theorizing for years. Take the golden lancehead found on a small island off the coast of Brazil. This snake has evolved different characteristics from its mainland relatives. This is a classic example of a bottleneck effect (a small population of animals becomes reproductively isolated from the main population. Mutations are more pronounced in the isolated population (less individuals), which gradually evolves to become different than the mainland population). If you want an interesting read, check out some of Dr. Fry's work on the evolution of venom in snakes (www.venomdoc.com).

There are many misconceptions involving evolution. Many people believe that evolution says that man evolved from apes. This is NOT what evolution is saying. Evolution says that man and apes descended from a COMMON ANCESTOR. That is why we share 99% of the same DNA as chimpanzees. This is evidence that cannot be refuted. The problem with using google to learn about evolution and evolutionary processes is that not all of the info you find will be accurate. Check out scientific papers. As for PE, it is definately a scientific theory, not affiliated with "Intelligent Design."

As for dating, carbon dating and other methods involving different elements have been used to very accurately date things such as dinosaur bones, ancient ruins, and even the true age of the earth itself (4.5 billion years old).

The point is that science has come far enough with advances in genetics and other areas that the process of organisms evolving cannot be disputed. It is fact. "Intelligent design" only represents a step backward for science.

.....is a loss of information and in no way "proves" evolution.

Helicobacter pylori is a great example. It has an enzyme in it that when presented with an antibiotic, it will mix with the enzyme and poison the bacteria, killing it.

The "resistant" strain simply does not have the ability to produce this enzyme and therefore, it doesn't die when presented with bacteria. It is a loss of information and nothing more than Natural Selection, which is a Christian idea to begin with.

Dogs and horses never make anything other than dogs and horses, respectively; only different "kinds" and that is biblical.

The important point here is that no new information is ever ADDED to the genome and that is necessary for Evolution.

If man came from bacteria, then a lot...I mean a LOT of information would need to be added. Hasn't happened and it is not observable. There are NO transitional species.

Evolution is a religion that requires too much faith for me, I am afraid.

It is far easier for me to accept the fact of a creator GOD than to try and accept that even though there is NO proof whatsoever that man "evolved" from some primordial soup, I am to believe it because my earth science teacher said so.

But I do understand why it is tough for some. It makes them face their accountability to a Holy and Just GOD and takes Man out of the morality equation. If God doesn't decide truth, then MAN decides truth and it is all relative.

Chris

Yes, it does prove evolution. The example you gave only supports it. Natural Selection IS a mechanism of evolution. And the antibiotic does not mix with the enzyme, it inhibits its function or production, therefore depriving the bacteria of the enzymes function and killing it. Eventually (and with bacteria this happens fast), the resistant bacteria are the ones who survive. Unfortunately with inappropriate use of antibiotics this is becoming all too common.

Being that I am of a scientific background (studying evolution, among other things) and given my degree in science, I am afraid that most of your other information is misguided.

Your dogs and horses example is also misguided. Yes, dogs and horses make dogs and horses. Nothing in evolution says that a dog will suddenly birth anything different. It takes a long time for things to evolve. Evolution explains how there are so many different breeds of dog that ALL CAME FROM A COMMON ANCESTOR. All domesticated dogs, whether a german shepard or a maltese, are the same species and all dogs descended from one of four groups. Dogs were bred for certain traits, and over thousands of years (possibly 100,000) of domestication we see the many different breeds that we do today, many of which look nothing like each other. However, dogs share much DNA with wolves and other wild dogs such as dingos.

The same can be said of horses...which have been bred into different strains that can be traced back genetically to wild horses, and other relatives such as zebras and rhinos.

There is also no point in evolution that says that new information is added to the genome. Evolution relies on RANDOM mutations that gradually change the genome of animals.

Evolution does NOT require faith. It is proven by fact. Things such as vestigal structures (human tailbone) and DNA analyses only help support evolution. The fossil record supports evolution. That is why you see fossils of reptiles (which rose from amphibians) 360 million years ago, but no mammals until 220 million years ago, and those were small animals which were not as numerous or diverse as they are today. Looking at the fossil record, you can trace back lineages. First vertebrates: 500 million years ago, fish arose from these. Amphibians arose from fish 410 million years ago...then reptiles from amphibians and so on. But you will never see a horse or a monkey or a human for that matter from 400 million years ago.

You can also see that symbiotic bacteria were the basis for the organelles found in eukaryotic cells.

Evolution is a PROVEN mechanism of the diversity of animals we now see (and have seen in the past). It is no longer a theory, it is scientific fact. Evolution can be backed up.

I didn't mean to insult your intelligence.

If it was taken that way, I apologize; however, I am used to those within the evolution religion being a an angry lot.

I must admit that Christians sometimes do not act very Christ-like.

There are no transitional species so evolution is not provable.

Do not confuse natural selection (a christian idea) and a loss of information with evolution and gain of information.

I will add you to my prayer list.

Chris

PS...here's a thayeri....what the forum is about I seem to remember

No need to apologize...you did not insult my intelligence and I did not take any offense. I was just presenting some facts, and paricipating in a meaningful conversation.

As for Natural Selection, it IS a mechanism of evolution. It is one process by which organisms evolve. It is coupled with evolution. The term Natural Selection was coined by Charles Darwin in his book Origin of Species (an interesting read), about the processes by which organisms evolved. I don't know where you got the information that Natural Selection is something separate from evolution, but it is not. Again, it is a process by which evolution occurs. And when Darwin came out with the Origin of Species and Natural Selection, the Church widely opposed the idea.

Anyway, back to what this forum is about. That pic you have is a beautiful thayeri...how old/large is it?

It wasn't Darwin, he simply coined the phrase.

A monk named Gregor Mendel was on it in the 1850's.

And, she will breed this season.

Chris

the God-fearing chemist/zoologist Edward Blyth who lived from 1810 to 1873. His idea was published between 1835-1837 and beat Darwin to the punch a little.

(footnote: Taylor, I., In the Minds of Men, TFE Publishing, Toronto, Canada, pp. 125—133, 1984).

Here's another thayeri.

Gregor Mendel was the father of modern genetics. His work had to do with inheritance, not Natural Selection. Also, Darwin's book came out in the 1850's, and he had read it and it influenced some of his genetic work.
As for Blyth...while he did write some papers on Natural Selection it was not the same theory as Darwin's view, which is how we look at it presently.

How large is the female you are going to breed this season?

Darwin nearly plagiarised Blyth. To say anything to the contrary with NO proof text is simply dishonest.

I don't believe you to be unintelligent.

http://www.thedarwinpapers.com/oldsite/Number2/Darwin2Html.htm

That thayeri is in her third year this year and that picture was taken in her second season.

Chris

I went ahead and read the Darwin Papers. This site is riddled with incorrect information. Unfortunately, the internets greatest asset is also its greatest downfall: anyone can make a site with whatever info they choose, no matter how inaccurate. To point out all the false and incorrect information would take way too long (and somebody already posted multiple criticisms of the site: http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/the_darwin_papers_rjw.htm). I chose two examples of false information to illustrate my point:

"Nothing like it (the egg of the pig shark) exists at all in any other species of shark, there is no evidence of evolution having produced this marvel, it speaks for design from a creative intelligence, not blind chance and random chemicals mixing together."

The "pig shark" is properly known as the Port Jackson shark. While the site claims that it is the only species of shark to have this egg case, there are actually 10 other species of shark that have the exact same egg case. Addtionally, other sharks, rays, and skates have similar egg cases to the Port Jackson shark, evidence for evolution.

"The crocodile's heart, on the other hand, is not anything like this at all (when referring to the relationship of crocs to other reptiles)"

The order crocodilia (crocs, gators, caimen, etc) do not really physiologically resemble other reptiles. They are actually more closely related to birds, as both birds and reptiles evolved 84 million years ago from the ancient group Archosauria (and are the only living relatives of the dinosaurs). And if you look at the hearts if crocodilians and birds, they BOTH have four chambered hearts. Other reptiles have the same 3 chambered heart (in which the 4th chamber is partially divided), showing that the other groups of reptiles are more closely related to each other than they are to crocs. Again, more evidence for evolution.

As for transitional species, you can see them not only in the fossil record, but there is evidence in modern animal's physiology. The example I gave earlier: python and boas, the most primative snakes, have remnants of legs in their skeletons, humans have tailbones, handbones in bats, etc.

As for the question of a "loss of information versus a gain of information," this is also not really accurate. Evolution changes genetics, but there is no actual loss of information or gain of information.

Evolution is not "pseudo science" it is actual science. Evolution is at a point where it is pretty much fact.

Anyway, back to the purpose of the site. You have some beautiful thayeri that you should be proud of. Im sure that your female will produce beautiful offspring and I wish you the best in all your endeavors. It has been an interesting debate.

Althoug he is very LOUD and always has been, it seems (not your fault, an unbeliever doesn't even realize he is being used in that way).

No need for a long point-by-point here as it is wasteful. I noted you didn't even address the point adequately which was Blyth and Darwin, so neither will I.

No transitional species. Nope, not a one. If you choose to believe astralopithoscene is a monkey/man (although they were knuckle walkers and had ape feet) or that anal spurs were once legs and have de-volved (rather than being for another purpose or, GASP, having been changed by GOD as punishment or so says my history book), that's your religion but it is neither fact or observable.

"For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

Because that, when they knew God, they glorified [him] not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

Romans 1:20-25

Thanks for the compliments on the snakes. Yours are nice, too.

I will continue to pray for you.

Chris Jones

...you are calling the devil?
I've been following this and really, for somebody who claims he is not a religious nut, if the only good response you have in response to information provided is "I'll pray for you", then maybe you need to reevaluate your idea of a religious nut.

Evolution does not "require too much faith". Religion requires faith, evolution requires belief. If there is evidence to support evolution, it's a matter of *believing* that evidence... not having faith in it. You may choose not to believe, anybody can, it is our right as humans. You may choose to have faith, you may choose not to, that is freedom of religion.

But just because somebody believes in evolution, that doesn't make them an "unbeliever" as it was put:
(quote)"Althoug he is very LOUD and always has been, it seems not your fault, an unbeliever doesn't even realize he is being used in that way)."

...and it's not your place or anybody else's to make that judgement. Do unto others as you would have others do unto you.

Go ahead and pray for me, I know it will make you feel better.
An entertaining read for anybody.

-----
"Were the diver to think upon the jaws of the shark, he would never lay hands on the precious pearl."

Jesus loves you, man.

Satan uses modern "belief systems" to keep the masses blinded to the truth.

This fella isn't the devil, but the original ideas are the devil's pet projects. I hope you understand the difference, but I am afraid you won't.

If you'll leave me your full name and any prayer requests, I'll gladly pray for them specifically.

here's another pic, to stay on semi-topic.

Chris

Of course Jesus loves me. And everybody else thinks I'm an a--hole, right? Yeah yeah, I got it. Satan is toiling away in the center of the Earth, because it isn't made of hot iron and nickel, it's an empty hole where Satan and his gang of evildoers live. In fact, he's down there right now cooking up JL's next post. You know... because he's possessed and all.

(quote)>>"I hope you understand the difference, but I am afraid you won't."
I certainly hope you aren't insinuating that I'm dense. Careful... remember, do unto others, good Christian.

(quote)>>"If you'll leave me your full name and any prayer requests, I'll gladly pray for them specifically."
It goes without saying that these days in the vastness of the internet and all of the undesirables hiding in dark corners that it's foolish to give out full names. But at your request, I leave my prayer request: My name is Tiffany, and tonight when you're kneeling at your bedside, I hope you'll pray that you can open your mind. It's an amazing world of information; don't be afraid.

~Tiff
-----
"Were the diver to think upon the jaws of the shark, he would never lay hands on the precious pearl."

"Whenever someone tells you to 'open your mind' watch out. They're about to dump some garbage in."

You have to be dogmatic about some things or you have no belief system at all.

Jesus said "I am the way, the truth and the life. No man cometh unto the Father but by me." Pretty dogmatic.

And I will most certainly pray for you, Tiffany. Not that your mind will open to all sorts of ideas but that you will recognize the GOD of creation in His creation before it is too late.

Chris

PS. Is that your collared lizard?

Well filter what you want from what you believe to be garbage. Remember, life is all about choices we make.

>>And I will most certainly pray for you, Tiffany. Not that your mind will open to all sorts of ideas but that you will recognize the GOD of creation in His creation before it is too late.

So be it- that's your choice.

Of course it's my collared- who else's would it be? He says hello. I'd add more pics, but it's far too OT for a mexicana kingsnake forum.

Aw heck, I've got a greyband pic in here I'm sure...not that it's mexican, but it's cute anyway.

~Tiff

-----
"Were the diver to think upon the jaws of the shark, he would never lay hands on the precious pearl."

I had to do it. The ignorance was painful. Had to say what you didn't.

Hurley says hi.

-----
"Were the diver to think upon the jaws of the shark, he would never lay hands on the precious pearl."

As for Blyth, while he had some ideas before Darwin, he was NOT the first person to come up with the idea of Natural Selection. Pierre Louis Moreau de Maupertuis came up with a similar idea in 1745, as did Darwin's grandfather. Darwin's theory is also different from Blyth's...whether he gave Blyth enough credit is not up to me...however, I would not take anything from the Darwin papers seriously as it is full of incorrect and false information.

As far as transitional species, pythons and boas not only have spurs but also a pelvic girdle in the skeleton, the actual remnents of hind limbs. If you want to see more about the evolution of snakes (including the evolution of venom), I highly recommend you check out Dr. Bryan Fry's website www.venomdoc.com.

Evolution is fact...supported by things from genetics to comparitive physiology. Another fact is that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old. The Earth was not as it seems today...South America and Africa were joined at one point...these things are supported not only by carbon dating but by the fact that continents are still drifting apart today.

It seems that we won't agree on this issue. However, we definately agree on how great thayeri are and that is the most important thing on this site...

btw: what is the record for the longest thread?

Mex-mex and durangos are cool as well...

...to the longest thread.

I've seen 'em trail right on down the page.....

Bet you though this was gonna be incendiary, huh?

I had to sell all my sticticeps when I moved into NC this year so there'll only be three thayeri pairings, eastern kings and some goini.

What are you breeding this season?

Chris

I'm not actually to the breeding point yet...I have a young (4 month) old thayeri female and I will be picking up a male at the Tampa show coming up. Im going to raise them up and hopefully they will be ready to breed in the next season or two.

I love seeing that picture, that has to be one of the prettiest retro looking thayeri out there. Very soft shading with very little black. Gorgeous animal!
-----
Michelle

Michelle, I like your approach - very pretty snake.
-----
Rick
Never Enough
Reptiles

I also agree, that is one purty snake. I think their all purty even them black and white ones. Them grey and orange ones are really sumethin too
-----
Vichris
"The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane"- Marcus Aurelius

Vichris Variables

Not to skirt all the other fun stuff in this thread (okay maybe it is). I have mentioned before that the topic of genetic relationships between the different species/sub-species of Lampropeltis interests me and I am intrigued by the interrelationships (no mater what the means). Unfortunatly, as I have also mentioned, I have limited background in the subject and have only educated myself to a basic understanding level. You have a way of paraphrasing such details in a way I understand, can you give your two cents on what you think the research points to? Yes, I understand it will probably be conjecture but at least it will be educated conjecture.

Thanks!
-----
Rick
Never Enough
Reptiles