First off...
I'm not breeding bugs, read a bit closer there Sherlock.
Secondly, once again, grand and dramatic statements have been made that insinuate that some understanding of reptiles as a whole or these species in particular has been acchieved, yet...
No specific information has been given.
You say you learned about the properties of pigment and pattern... Well,
WHAT did you learn about these properties?
You said you learned about universal attractiveness of pheremones in snakes... Again
WHAT did you learn about these pheremones?
You state that you have learned a breeding response is stronger than a feed response... yet also say that, were anyone else to attempt this bastardization of species, they would fail... This represents a fundamental contradiction in your claim. Were the breeding response stronger overall as a matter of biology... Then anyone else attempting this would have equal success. You can logically make one contention or the other... probably be wrong as you have shown an astoundingly poor grasp of biology, but logically you could claim one of the above to be true... But the two concepts are mutually exclusive.
You state that you are learning that the snakes in question were much closer genetically than was previously thought... Please then oh fount of nevernding knowledge (With knowledge situationally defined as lies and misinformation) write up a new taxonomic structure for all of Colubridae as evidence of your newfound understanding.
Yes, you ARE learning that Seamus is irked by snakes with big eyes... that
ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO HAVE BIG EYES this "bubble eye" that the animal on the left in the pictures is displaying is a defect... Understand? A condition that acts in some way to debilitate the animal by making them less fit... one that crops up often with intensely line bred snakes and more often than it should in these crimes against nature that are perpetuated by the ignorant.
Quote:
any time you add new genes to an animal ( including humans) you are bettering it genetically by freshening the gene pool of that animal. you are in fact adding dominant genes that have been naturally selected over hundreds of thousands of years to a snake that would otherwise not have them.
|
The above is quite possibly one of the stupidest statements I have ever seen anyone make while pretending that they were serious about the nonsense they were spouting.
The dominant genes of each of the three involved pure species evolved independant of one another for a reason, had greater success fufilling their ecological niches separate from the genes of the other snakes involved and were kept separate by naturally isolating behavioral deviations. If this disgusting bug-eyed, ugly-ass mutant cross that you're so proud of were genetically superior and the snakes were inclined to breed on their own when under conditions where their instincts haven't been retarded to the point of non-existance... Then they would exist in nature... Except, the parent species involved don't live anywhere near one another and the areas where the ranges come the closest, these hybrids are never found.
Do you know
WHY these hybrids are never found?
Because the very definition of the word "Species" denotes an interbreeding group of animals and they don't interbreed!
Quote:
Seamus... such hatred. i'm not suprised at all by the 7 warnings you have aquired over time. i can see why you've chosen to focus your energy on insects. my question to you is why have you chosen to ignore my posts on the other thread. afraid i was making too much sense?
|
Quite frequently I choose speaking my mind over the use of tact, accepting the punishment in order to deliver a better point.
Like I'm about to do now for instance... You are an illiterate if you can't differentiate between the words "Seamus Haley" and the words "Gordon C. Snelling"
Incidentally, I read your response on the other thread, I did choose not to respond at that time and I'll explain why...
- You clearly hadn't read the actual thread you were responding to or the one it was linked to (Two threads ended up running parallel and were combined into one discussion).
- You clearly don't have even a basic understanding of biology.
- You clearly don't understand the fact that you don't understand biology... being ignorant even to the existance of your ignorance.
- Already I had seen the glimmers of these lies you have been spouting... Trying to wrap what you have done in the mantle of science, an attempt to confuse those who might not know better into believeing that you might know what you're doing... It sickens me. It really does act as nothing short of an insult to people who actually have made it their mission in life to further the understanding and knowledge of these animals to have ignorant sacks of... You... to be claiming some mastery over herpetology or evolutionary biology or taxonomy or genetics, especially when you refuse to actually provide any concrete information that you have gained from this disgusting display of greed and stupidity.
If it's science... Actual, reasonable research into the biology of the parent species, then please answer the following...
What hypothesis did you form before undertaking this experiment?
What steps did you take to ensure it wasn't a contaminated experiment?
What conclusion have you drawn about the genetics of the animals in question as it relates to taxonomic revision?
What conclusion have you drawn about the existance of isolating factors within the species natural behavioral patterns?
What conclusions have you drawn about the genetic dominance of pattern that you claim to have been studying in light of the offspring having clearly different patterns and markings?
Where's the rest of the clutch?
For the love of all that's good and right in this world, what kind of deranged sicko are you to think that those... things... pictured are better looking than the pure species that compose the background?
True, the last one doesn't address your claims of acting for the advancement of herpetological science, but it's a valid question to be certain.
And Rich... There are two older threads where we hashed out some of those definitions pretty thouroughly, through a few acts of consensus, about a half dozen or so of the more active fauna participants arrived at a point where an agreement was reached about the science involved if not the ethics. The species definition and some of the other slightly more technical issues take a while to type out, but they're there if a search is done.