"Mimic Rattlesnake"

[knox]

Pet peeve of mine. When someone says a snake is mimicking a rattlesnake when it moves it's tail. Come on- snakes have no idea what "mimicking" is! The truth is that nearly all snakes rattle their tails when nervous. It just so happens that Rattlers make noise when they do it.

So that's it. Just wanted to get that off my chest. Thanks for listening :D

[Minkness]

Some snakes do actually mimic though. Western hogs 'mimic' rattlers by their patterns, cobras by how they can hood up, and death when they roll over and stink.

They may not know theybare doing it, but it's a mimic anyway.

[knox]

Then why wouldn't you say that Rattlesnakes mimic Kingsnakes when they move their tails rapidly? Or that Coral snakes mimic Milk snakes with their colors?

And as far as Corals and Milks- what about the Black Milk? It is no longer a Coral mimic when it is an adult.

I do see your point- they may be A mimic, but it is not intentional. They aren't thinking "I am going to pretend to be a rattlesnake" or "Maybe that raccoon will think I am a Coral snake".

That's what I disagree with- when someone describes it as an INTENTIONAL act of will by the snake.

[Tsubaki]

Since evolution determined what the snakes look/behave like, and the ones best resembling coral snakes (to use the milksnake example) had more chance to be confused as one; making those the genes passed on. You could say they 'mimic' as a part of their evolution.

[knox]

I don't believe in evolution. But that is a different discussion....

[Tsubaki]

Then call it genetic selection / selective breeding.. whatever.. "I don't believe in evolution' is a bit of a shallow reply in this particular subject. Too fixated on a 'word'. It's Survival of the fittest, the fittest being the ones who look most appealing to attack (aka venomous) As those are less likely to be eaten, the 'weaker' ones are easily picked out by predators. Resulting: the animals with the genes to deter predators thrive, and they do not indeed 'know' why they are that color or act that way.. But it is the reason their species survives. Not speaking of evolution theories or religion or whatever, do not even want to get into that.. Just speaking of simple (100% proven) genetics.

[knox]

"shallow" or "simple" as it may appear to you...

I am a technician in the field of electrophysiology focused on implantable bi-ventricular cardio defibrillators; working daily with electrophysiologists and cardiologists while mapping out myopotentials, ablating atrioventricular nodes, and implanting pacemakers and cardio defibrillators.

I understand biology and genetics pretty well. I understand the theory of evolution extremely well. I have quite a good grasp on that side of the fence. And no one has ever witnessed nor tested a species turning into another species. It is a religion based on theories that are impossible to even play with to observe.

Biodiversity, genetic advantages are another thing altogether. Those have nothing to do with the religion of evolution. And evolution doesn't account for things that CAN be observed- art, compassion, love, morality, feelings. These are not the result of electrons firing in our system. These are spiritual, intangible phenomena that are true and measurable.

That's the way I see it. I believe what I can test and observe. And evolution doesn't even come close to being testable nor observable.

With respect...

[FWK]

Don't even say that word Tsubaki, certain people (we know who) will be here in no time shouting for the thread to be shut down.

I agree with you knox, snakes do not mimic Rattlesnakes intentionally. It is a peeve of mine as well, akin the to the venomous/poisonous issue. Snakes developed this defensive mechanism (tail rattling) in the old world, long before spreading into the new world. The ability to make some sort of sound proved useful for survival and the animals that did so thrived due to selection pressures, just like Tsubakis example of color selection. Many old world species still rattle their tails, even though never in their evolutionary histories have they been exposed to Rattlesnakes. Rattlesnakes developed rattles later on in the new world, they just took the idea of making noise to a new level by developing a rattle. Hooding, spreading the jaw, flatting the body, throat puffing (most notably by some South American species), and other threat displays have proven useful as well, just by making the snake appear larger and dangerous.

[knox]

There are snakes that exist nowhere NEAR Rattlesnakes and they STILL rattle their tails when nervous. How are they mimicking Rattlers?

That's all I'm saying.

Passively? Sure. But they also mimic a piece of rope. Is this genetic or by force of will?

[knox]

Don't even say that word Tsubaki, certain people (we know who) will be here in no time shouting for the thread to be shut down.

I agree with you knox, snakes do not mimic Rattlesnakes intentionally. It is a peeve of mine as well, akin the to the venomous/poisonous issue. Snakes developed this defensive mechanism (tail rattling) in the old world, long before spreading into the new world. The ability to make some sort of sound proved useful for survival and the animals that did so thrived due to selection pressures, just like Tsubakis example of color selection. Many old world species still rattle their tails, even though never in their evolutionary histories have they been exposed to Rattlesnakes. Rattlesnakes developed rattles later on in the new world, they just took the idea of making noise to a new level by developing a rattle. Hooding, spreading the jaw, flatting the body, throat puffing (most notably by some South American species), and other threat displays have proven useful as well, just by making the snake appear larger and dangerous.


Thank you. I just posted something similar.

[Slithersaurus]

About adult black milk snake, they are no longer looks like coral when they live in the environment which is higher above sea level than other subspecies of milk snake where the temperature can drop drastically. The black milk is considered the very large subspecie among milk and large animal can lose heat quicker than small one. Black milk finds the advantage of becoming black when they are adult as the black color also help absorbing heat more efficeintly as well. They also don't have to be afraid of predator as much as other milk snakes, as a 7 feet snake can easily defend itself against predator such as birds of prey or small mamalian predators.... Maybe not that easy, but at least they are not the main traget of those hunters. This makes them not in need of the mimicry of the venomous coral snake and so, with the eariler reason, black milk that turns black when become adult tend to outcompete the ones that don't due to being able to absorb heat faster and become active faster and are more likely to get food or mate than the one that don't change. as the time go, there are only black milk that turns black in adulthood left in their range. The tiny baby and juvenile stay the same as they are still benefit from the mimicry and they don't need black color to help absorb heat as much as adult

Also, I heard a theory that said rattlesnakes develops such highly vocal tail rattling because they have to co-exist with gigantic mega faunas such as bisons, mammoths, giant camels and such during the old time and have to avoid being stepped on. Rattling noise help warning the giants before they walks over the snake, not knowing that the reptile are there. I am not buying this theory much though as mega faunas did found in the other part of the world as well, yet there are none of any snake that develop such defense.

[knox]

I own a Black Milk. Lovely and gentle animals. Mine is almost solid Black finally.

[Minkness]

Ummm....since when is Evolution Religious?

[Aaron_S]

Aaron post - From my experience and views I don't see many old world snakes moving their tails as often as new world's do.

I find many pits and other colubrids rattle their tails in the leafy litter which mimics the rattlesnake sound to scare off predators.

It would have to be evolution considering no one tells these snakes about rattlesnakes and there's a chance that these animals may never encounter one another. It's very fascinating with all snakes actually. Many little things they do even though they are no longer "wild" and have been bred in captivity for long periods of time.

[Aaron_S]

Moderator post - Read my avatar. Everyone is doing a fantastic job at keeping this civil and I expect it to continue so this is a warning left for anyone reading who wants to take this down a path it doesn't need to go.

Again, great conversation.

[Minkness]

Love how you designate which post is which Aaron XD

[knox]

Ummm....since when is Evolution Religious?


It is based on faith-not observable and testable facts. That makes it a religion. Or at least, a religious idea and following.

That's why it's called the THEORY of evolution. It can't be verified.

[knox]

Moderator post - Read my avatar. Everyone is doing a fantastic job at keeping this civil and I expect it to continue so this is a warning left for anyone reading who wants to take this down a path it doesn't need to go.

Again, great conversation.

I would not expect less from this most excellent group of enthusiasts.

[RAD House]

Even though tail shaking may not have come about because of the advantage of mimicking a venomous species, there very real examples in the snake kingdom. Not just milk snake but another good example is bull snakes that not only look like rattlesnakes but also have a flap of skin in their mouth that makes their hiss sound eerily like a rattlesnake. The difference between religion and the theory of evolution is that evolution is a an ever changing conglomeration of the study and thoughts of many generations of scientists, where as religion in most cases is a old stagnant harmful ideal based on the words of people who had no idea about the natural world. It seems to me that your understanding of the theory of evolution could use a bit of a brush up, including the terms that pertain to it such as mimicry. I think intelligent people realize that a bull snake or a milksnake does not wake up every morning thinking to itself "I am totally going to act like a b.a. venomous snake today." If you believe in genetic advantage does it not seem reasonable that these advantages would build up in a species over time? If they did build up over time wouldn't a species far into the future look quite different than its ancestor that did not have any of these advantages?

[knox]

No idea about the natural world? In the Hebrew Bible-thousands of years before the common era-the hydrologic cycle and movements of the celestial bodies was described long before "scientists" discovered them. The placement of the stars as related to the changing season was written down as fact before modern astronomy existed.

Not to mention farming and agriculture and everything that goes into actually thriving. Mathematics As well.

I would say they had a pretty good idea of how the natural world works- extending out to the cosmos.

[RAD House]

Which is good because with out those basic understandings they would have starved. I hope you are not contending that they understood as much about the actual processes that cause these phenomena as we do now? Are you telling me they could have done whatever it was that your ridiculously long job title entails? Come on I don't think that we need to argue that people of the past had much less understanding about the natural world than we do now. I also find it interesting in all that I said you chose this to key up on.

[knox]

First... this is a great conversation. I love hearing how other people think and process, so thank you for the input.

I keyed on that because you said they had no idea how the natural world works, when in fact, they had a more advanced knowledge than most people before modern science discovered what the Jewish people already knew for thousands of years.

Of course we are more advanced in technology. That is not even debatable. But they had a firmer grasp on things than we give them credit for. They weren't dumb and dense people back then. That's all I was saying.

And those writings show how advanced they were in the ways of the natural world - before telescopes and microscopes and what not. They understood that blood was the source of life, when other civilizations were using leeches to take OUT blood.

It's quite fascinating to research just how much of modern science is in a book that was written from 7 to 2 thousand years ago. They were pretty intelligent and quite scientific. Not all of the people back then blindly followed useless traditions.

[knox]

If you believe in genetic advantage does it not seem reasonable that these advantages would build up in a species over time? If they did build up over time wouldn't a species far into the future look quite different than its ancestor that did not have any of these advantages?

Valid point. But a snake is still a snake. A cow is still a cow. A bird is still a bird.

Even today, we see that mutations in nature are NEVER beneficial to the species. What happens to albinos most of the time? Eaten because of no ability to blend in. Genetic mutations are deformities. Have we ever seen a scientific, documented genetic mutation that aided a species? I don't know of any - let alone that were passed along to offspring.

I am not talking about color or size - things we can easily control with selective breeding. These are still the same animals, the same species.

I am talking about gills to lungs. Scales to feathers. Those kinds of things.

[Minkness]

Knowing that happens is very different than knownhow or why. Giving dieties all the credit for a good or bad crop yeild, or for powerful, sometimes deadly storms, or sickness is not the same as understanding the intricasies of a weather pattern, crop rotation, animal and human medical needs, and so on.

Bot that the elders of the ages were stupid. They were just as smart as they needed to be to survive. Regardless of their 'true' understanding of the world they lived in.

Even todays beliefs have somewhat 'evolved'. Wether it's religious, political, or just personal morals and beliefs of hiw an individual chooses to live their lives. You can simply call it 'change' if you like, but every change has a catalyst that begins the process.

Also, a belief in science is not religious (unless it's scientology which is a standing religion around science). If that were the case, you wouldn't have atheist scientists.

Back on topic though, to 'mimic' is really just to pretend, thus, the hognose pretends to be dead sometimes. It may not be an intentional act on the same level of intelligence as some animals (like monkies/apes and some birds) but an inherited trait from many generations that found that niche in the cycle of survival and built on that with each passing and future generation.

Angler fish use a lure that 'mimics' food to other fish. To them they are just using a tool thatbis part of their body. As someone else mentioned, that animal is not actively thinking "I'm gunna lure that sucker in by making him think this is a glow worm" but that doesn't deny the fact that their lure DOES look like a glow worm.

Or butterflies who have adapted to having bright colors or designs that in the natural world scream 'poisonous' to potential preditors or giant eye spots to cause fear or confusion. It's simply a tool to any of these animals, but it does indeed appear very simmilar to other more dangerous animals...thus...a mimic.

[knox]

Gotta go for a while, but I will leave with this.

Regardless of our different world views, we are in a fantastic hobby with amazing animals!

That is pretty cool. Diversity is a good thing. We don't all have to be the same.

Cheers!

[Minkness]

Also, there is a difference between mutations and 'evolution'. Because our sciences weren't around since thendawn of time, there is no real feasible way to judge which evolutionists were caused by mutations or general survuval of the fittest.

[RAD House]

Valid point. But a snake is still a snake. A cow is still a cow. A bird is still a bird.

Even today, we see that mutations in nature are NEVER beneficial to the species. What happens to albinos most of the time? Eaten because of no ability to blend in. Genetic mutations are deformities. Have we ever seen a scientific, documented genetic mutation that aided a species? I don't know of any - let alone that were passed along to offspring.

I am not talking about color or size - things we can easily control with selective breeding. These are still the same animals, the same species.

I am talking about gills to lungs. Scales to feathers. Those kinds of things.
If you believe those points then you believe in evolution. Mutation is the driving factor for evolution whether it be advantageous or not. There is no such thing as a good or bad mutation as they are entirely random, meaning no rhyme or reason. Most mutations are not advantageous, but every so often a animal hits the genetic jack pot and gets one that is. If this genetic advantage leads to this animal breeding more successfully than the gene proliferates in a group and spreads through the generations. From a statistical stand point it is all highly unlikely, but given enough time anything is possible. Words like cow, bird, and snake are generic terms our ancestors that had little understanding of biodiversity described the creatures they saw and they have no place in a discussion about evolution. Scales and feathers are actually incredibly close in structure.

[knox]

Also, there is a difference between mutations and 'evolution'. Because our sciences weren't around since thendawn of time, there is no real feasible way to judge which evolutionists were caused by mutations or general survuval of the fittest.

Exactly. But you believe either one of them happened by your FAITH, not by direct observation by you or anyone else who actually witnessed any type of transition.

Your faith is what puts you on the side of the fence with others who postulate what they believed happened, but have no scientific, observable fact about what happened.

Not knocking you at all. But that's why I call it a religion - it is based entirely on faith, not observable fact.

[Minkness]

Hmmm...Meso, you have a point. I revoke my words of mutations and evolution being different. Perhaps they are just viewed differently at different times.

Though I am always curious about albinism as it is a 'mutation' that seems to affect all creatures with no noteable advantage. If anything, ither than being asthetically pleasing to some humans, itis more harmful than helpful, yet prevails.

Any thoughts, theiries, or insite on this?

[Slithersaurus]

Well, albinism is a kind of mutation that never benefit a creature in the nature anyway, but that doesn't mean that every mutations don't... I can explain why mutation can effect and CREATE entire new specie in an amount of time which is what evolution is.

Let's think of a specie of colubrid snake that just travels into a entire new land where they find lots of empty niches in this new environment or say, there aren't any animals that are filling these roles in the environment at all.

The colubrid starts spreading their number all over the new land, moving into every places and space. Soon, competition of the same role starts taking place. animals starts to find newer way to make them be able to "escape" from the competition or else dominate it. Due to the high genetic mutation, there are, for example a group of snake are born with quite muscular muscle, more robust than any of its kin. This group of snake find that they can use their strong muscle to hold prey, of course this is caused by instinct and accident, not because the snakes can think about it and decide to try something new. They starts to use their body to wrap around prey to overpower it which is more effective against a kind of prey wich would be hunted more difficult with the old strategy of the snake. The descendants of this line of snake lives on as their ancesters get benefit from strong muscle and inherit this trait as well. The descendant, due to the high genetic variation, like their ancesters, has some of them having even more powerful muscle. The snakes starts to lean their diet toward this kind of prey which can be easily caught using strong muscle while the orignal snakes that doesn't change to have powerful muscle can't and have to stick to the old prey kind.

Imgaine this progress happens over and over and over again. The descendants of the strong muscle snake now are so strong that it can kill prey with just its muscle alone, creating the new kind of hunting called "contriction" and make them more specialize on hunting this particular kind of prey, which make them prefer the same habitat and thus, have more chance to breed with other strong muscle snakes than to the original snakes, making their generic even more distant from the original snake.... Then, after many years and years and years of only breeding into the same group (which is large enough to not to be concerned about inbreeding.) Their gene turns out so different from the original snakes that they can't breed back to the original snake normally, even can their line of descendant will not stay "in-between" for long, either go infertile or their gene revert back to resemble either original snake or strong muscle snake after breeding back to pure original snake or strong muscle snake which have more chance than breeding it the "in-between" kind. So now, you get entire new specie of colubrid snake that is contrictor and they are descendant of the non-contrictior colubrid that entered the land many many million years ago and we call the "in-between" offspring of the two species "hybrid".

Here is what I can say.... To believe or not, it's up to you now. But at least I can show that evolution is not a thing that can't be explained.

[Minkness]

Exactly. But you believe either one of them happened by your FAITH, not by direct observation by you or anyone else who actually witnessed any type of transition.

Your faith is what puts you on the side of the fence with others who postulate what they believed happened, but have no scientific, observable fact about what happened.

Not knocking you at all. But that's why I call it a religion - it is based entirely on faith, not observable fact.

You mean my understanding of science and respect for those who actually donthe researchis faith? Does that mean that your cardiowhatever doesn't actually work off of the knowledge of biomechanics but simply runs on your faith that it will help the lives of the people theyare used in? No offence, but that is a weak representation of faith.... =/

And saying there is nonproof to science is like denying the existance of fossils, atoms, molicules and every other integrated aspect of all living things or beyond.

[Aaron_S]

Exactly. But you believe either one of them happened by your FAITH, not by direct observation by you or anyone else who actually witnessed any type of transition.

Your faith is what puts you on the side of the fence with others who postulate what they believed happened, but have no scientific, observable fact about what happened.

Not knocking you at all. But that's why I call it a religion - it is based entirely on faith, not observable fact.

Aaron post - I have to disagree that it's not observable.

We can observe it. It just isn't in our average time frame to see it happen.

For example, if I took a large population of ball pythons. Made them live in an area where only birds existed, then those ball pythons would eat only birds. The best ones who climbed the best or figured it out would breed and create better bird killers.
They would eventually become more inclined to a tree living life (less robust as they are) and most likely grow longer teeth to help catch their prey.
The animals that developed these traits would grow better, stronger and breed more often passing along those genes.

Part of this is that the birds will change too. They will grow faster or harder to catch which is the result in the snakes growing longer teeth to hold their quicker, harder to catch prey.

We can physically observe this. However, the problem that we have it would take generations of breeding to see noticable changes in the teeth.

That is why it's called a THEORY of evolution. It isn't on faith, it's that this is how science has proven with facts how things have changed over centuries. We simply don't live centuries to see it.

[reknirt]

It is based on faith-not observable and testable facts. That makes it a religion. Or at least, a religious idea and following.

That's why it's called the THEORY of evolution. It can't be verified.

Knox,

I'm a new snake owner also in Knoxville. I have a 6 month old Sunset Indian Sand Boa. I also like your views on evolution. I appreciate the thread.

[eminart]

It is based on faith-not observable and testable facts. That makes it a religion. Or at least, a religious idea and following.

That's why it's called the THEORY of evolution. It can't be verified.

For the record, I agree snakes that rattle their tails aren't mimicking rattlesnakes. At least, they weren't originally.

But, your views on evolution are incorrect.

The misuse of the word "theory" is the most basic and uniformed error possible when it comes to this "debate" (although there is no real debate). Have you ever heard of the THEORY of gravity? Evolution is a scientific FACT just like gravity, and its mechanics are described by the "theory of evolution". The fact that evolution occurs hasn't been in question for the past 100 years by educated scientists. It's accepted fact. The THEORY is our understanding and description of its methods. Saying it is based on faith is nonsense. Anyone who wants to see the mountains of evidence that back it up need only to do a small amount of research. It is backed in every possible way, from fossil records to genetics. Without evolution, the entire field of biology falls apart.

As far as science needing to be "observable and testable", that doesn't refer to someone sitting and watching it take place. Obviously, we can't see one species change into another in real time. But, we have the records (fossils, genetics, etc.) that allow us to "observe" and test it.

[knox]

Aaron post - I have to disagree that it's not observable.

We can observe it. It just isn't in our average time frame to see it happen.

For example, if I took a large population of ball pythons. Made them live in an area where only birds existed, then those ball pythons would eat only birds. The best ones who climbed the best or figured it out would breed and create better bird killers.
They would eventually become more inclined to a tree living life (less robust as they are) and most likely grow longer teeth to help catch their prey.
The animals that developed these traits would grow better, stronger and breed more often passing along those genes.

Part of this is that the birds will change too. They will grow faster or harder to catch which is the result in the snakes growing longer teeth to hold their quicker, harder to catch prey.

We can physically observe this. However, the problem that we have it would take generations of breeding to see noticable changes in the teeth.

That is why it's called a THEORY of evolution. It isn't on faith, it's that this is how science has proven with facts how things have changed over centuries. We simply don't live centuries to see it.

They are still Pythons and they are still birds. This isn't evolution, this is genetic strength. It is not the same. The snakes aren't changing into another species, nor are the birds.

I don't deny genetic strengths. We see it all the time in selective breeding. What IS faith is the belief that one species can mutate into another species. That has never been observed. It can't be tested. It can't be replicated. It is a belief system based on the theory of those who believed it happened with no scientific, testable, repeatable data.

If it WAS science - the debate would be over, because there would BE no debate.

[eminart]

If it WAS science - the debate would be over, because there would BE no debate.


The debate HAS been over for many decades. The only reason it is argued anyway, is because a certain sect of people don't WANT it to be true.

[chairman]

On the original topic of "mimic", I think it is one of those cases where the noun is being confused with the verb. The verb/action "to mimic" is commonly thought to require a conscious decision that many animals simply lack the capacity to make. I would lump snakes into a category of animal that cannot, for the most part, choose to mimic anything. Some of the smarter, more inquisitive, snakes might come closer to mimicking behaviors than other animals can.

But "mimic" as it applies to snakes is the noun version, a mimic being something that resembles something else. To say that a cornsnake is a mimic of a rattlesnake is foolish, they don't look alike; but to say that the cornsnake's tail vibration is a mimic of rattlesnake tail vibration isn't that far off. That's where I think that people get themselves in 'trouble', describing a behavior (noun) in terms of the verb involved (vibrating, rattling, etc).

That said, the mimic thing doesn't bother me, but I am very forgiving of the poison/venom thing too. I correct my kids but when their friends' moms inevitably ask if there's any poisonous snakes in the collection that I'm about to show their kids then I just say no and let the moms hide from the snakes upstairs.

On the side topic, I believe that the theory of evolution and the theory of speciation are best treated as separate theories.

I learned that the definition of evolution is a change in gene frequencies over time (and place). This definition is, I feel, rather non-controversial as it is a very testable hypothesis. You can isolate members of the same species that do not share a particular gene and watch the resulting progeny continue to not contain the same genes as the group from which they are separated. Ball pythons are a great example, captive ball pythons have evolved some very specialized gene frequencies as a result of geographic isolation and limited access to mating partners in comparison to their wild brethren. Viruses and bacteria are other great examples, they have a habit of differentiating themselves based on various external factors.

Speciation is, in my opinion, the trickier topic. We have manipulated the daylights out of canines but still consider Great Danes and Chihuahuas members of the same species. I am not aware of any experiments in which selective breeding has resulted in the creation of a new species. Even with the above-mentioned viruses, I'm not sure that I've ever heard that a strain of viruses had differentiated itself to a great enough degree to be considered a new species. I also don't keep abreast of the literature. The fossil record contains a lot of anecdotal support for the concept of speciation but the plural of anecdote is not data. I would not consider the theory of speciation to be non-scientific, you can design experiments and attempt to prove the null hypothesis.

The "problem" is that, thus far, speciation experiments have proven the null but people who do not appreciate the scientific process run with the theory as though it is law. To blindly believe that a scientific theory is law based on faith that the hypothesis is true could be construed as a religious assertion. This does not mean that the underlying theory is bogus or non-scientific as we very well may design a replicable experiment that proves speciation.

It took me quite a while to type this so I'm not sure what transpired while I did, but the important thing is to continue to have civil, constructive conversations. Which it seems we're pulling off for now.

[knox]

The debate HAS been over for many decades. The only reason it is argued anyway, is because a certain sect of people don't WANT it to be true.

My good man, this very thread obliterates the above statement. The debate can't possibly be over because we are, in fact, debating it.

Here's my question...

1. Observe some aspect of the universe.
2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed.
3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.
4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results.
5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation.

That is the scientific method. Physics, Mathematics, Biology, Medicine - they all pass the test.

WHY does evolution get a free pass? It is a hypothesis which, by very definition of the above, CAN'T be science. It CAN'T be proven. Heck, it can't even be TESTED nor REPEATED. Therefore, by very definition, it is still a theory because there ARE discrepancies between theory and experiment / observation (see step 5) because it is IMPOSSIBLE to experiment or observe.

I am not asking anyone to believe anything that can't be observed. Can't be tested. Can't be replicated and re-tested.

Why do evolutionists just gloss this over?

How is the debate over? Where are the tests? Where are the observable changes from 1 species to another? Where are the repeated tests proving the theory, the hypothesis?

[knox]

On the original topic of "mimic", I think it is one of those cases where the noun is being confused with the verb. The verb/action "to mimic" is commonly thought to require a conscious decision that many animals simply lack the capacity to make. I would lump snakes into a category of animal that cannot, for the most part, choose to mimic anything. Some of the smarter, more inquisitive, snakes might come closer to mimicking behaviors than other animals can.

But "mimic" as it applies to snakes is the noun version, a mimic being something that resembles something else. To say that a cornsnake is a mimic of a rattlesnake is foolish, they don't look alike; but to say that the cornsnake's tail vibration is a mimic of rattlesnake tail vibration isn't that far off. That's where I think that people get themselves in 'trouble', describing a behavior (noun) in terms of the verb involved (vibrating, rattling, etc).

That said, the mimic thing doesn't bother me, but I am very forgiving of the poison/venom thing too. I correct my kids but when their friends' moms inevitably ask if there's any poisonous snakes in the collection that I'm about to show their kids then I just say no and let the moms hide from the snakes upstairs.

On the side topic, I believe that the theory of evolution and the theory of speciation are best treated as separate theories.

I learned that the definition of evolution is a change in gene frequencies over time (and place). This definition is, I feel, rather non-controversial as it is a very testable hypothesis. You can isolate members of the same species that do not share a particular gene and watch the resulting progeny continue to not contain the same genes as the group from which they are separated. Ball pythons are a great example, captive ball pythons have evolved some very specialized gene frequencies as a result of geographic isolation and limited access to mating partners in comparison to their wild brethren. Viruses and bacteria are other great examples, they have a habit of differentiating themselves based on various external factors.

Speciation is, in my opinion, the trickier topic. We have manipulated the daylights out of canines but still consider Great Danes and Chihuahuas members of the same species. I am not aware of any experiments in which selective breeding has resulted in the creation of a new species. Even with the above-mentioned viruses, I'm not sure that I've ever heard that a strain of viruses had differentiated itself to a great enough degree to be considered a new species. I also don't keep abreast of the literature. The fossil record contains a lot of anecdotal support for the concept of speciation but the plural of anecdote is not data. I would not consider the theory of speciation to be non-scientific, you can design experiments and attempt to prove the null hypothesis.

The "problem" is that, thus far, speciation experiments have proven the null but people who do not appreciate the scientific process run with the theory as though it is law. To blindly believe that a scientific theory is law based on faith that the hypothesis is true could be construed as a religious assertion. This does not mean that the underlying theory is bogus or non-scientific as we very well may design a replicable experiment that proves speciation.

It took me quite a while to type this so I'm not sure what transpired while I did, but the important thing is to continue to have civil, constructive conversations. Which it seems we're pulling off for now.

Excellent post! Well said on all accounts.

[Minkness]

Dang Chairman....you sound smart. Thanks for the read! It makes alot of sense and is very well written! ^_^

[Minkness]

Excellent post! Well said on all accounts.

You realize you just agreed to everything you have been disagreeding to....right?

[eminart]

My good man, this very thread obliterates the above statement. The debate can't possibly be over because we are, in fact, debating it.

The fact that it is still debated by people who have reason not to want to believe it, does not constitute scientific debate. Again, the debate was over long ago.



Here's my question...

1. Observe some aspect of the universe.
2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed.
3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.
4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results.
5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation.

That is the scientific method. Physics, Mathematics, Biology, Medicine - they all pass the test.

WHY does evolution get a free pass? It is a hypothesis which, by very definition of the above, CAN'T be science. It CAN'T be proven. Heck, it can't even be TESTED nor REPEATED. Therefore, by very definition, it is still a theory because there ARE discrepancies between theory and experiment / observation (see step 5) because it is IMPOSSIBLE to experiment or observe.

Again, you misunderstand the scientific method. Evolution IS tested AND observed. That doesn't refer to Dr. Bob sitting at a lab table and "observing" evolution.

It has been "observed" through the evidence, and the "theory" has been tested, and it has made predictions. Such as:

Darwin predicted that precursors to the trilobite would be found in pre-Silurian rocks. He was correct: they were subsequently found.

Similarly, Darwin predicted that Precambrian fossils would be found. He wrote (http://www.tbi.univie.ac.at/Origin/origin_10.html) in 1859 that the total absence of fossils in Precambrian rock was "inexplicable" and that the lack might "be truly urged as a valid argument" against his theory. When such fossils were found (http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/97/13/6947), starting in 1953, it turned out that they had been abundant all along. They were just so small that it took a microscope to see them.

There are two kinds of whales: those with teeth, and those that strain microscopic food out of seawater with baleen. It was predicted that a transitional whale must have once existed, which had both teeth and baleen. Such a fossil has since been found.

Evolution predicts that the fossil record will show different populations of creatures at different times. For example, it predicts we will never find fossils of trilobites with fossils of dinosaurs, since their geological time-lines don't overlap. The "Cretaceous seaway" deposits in Colorado and Wyoming contain almost 90 different kinds of ammonites, but no one has ever found two different kinds of ammonite together in the same rockbed.

It was predicted that humans must have an intermaxillary bone, since other mammals do. The adult human skull consists of bones that have fused together, so you can't tell one way or the other in an adult. An examination of human embryonic development showed that an intermaxillary bone is one of the things that fuses to become your upper jaw.

Almost all animals make Vitamin C inside their bodies. It was predicted that humans are descended from creatures that could do this, and that we had lost this ability. (There was a loss-of-function mutation, which didn't matter because our high-fruit diet was rich in Vitamin C.) When human DNA was studied, scientists found a gene which is just like the Vitamin C gene in dogs and cats. However, our copy has been turned off.

A thousand years ago, just about every remote island on the planet had a species of flightless bird. Evolution explains this by saying that flying creatures are particularly able to establish themselves on remote islands. Some birds, living in a safe place where there is no need to make sudden escapes, will take the opportunity to give up on flying. Hence, Evolution predicts that each flightless bird species arose on the island that it was found on. So, Evolution predicts that no two islands would have the same species of flightless bird. Now that all the world's islands have been visited, we know that this was a correct prediction.

Those are just a few predictions made by the theory of evolution. More here: http://answersinscience.org/evo_science.html

[knox]

You realize you just agreed to everything you have been disagreeding to....right?


Nope. He is spot on"

"Speciation is, in my opinion, the trickier topic. We have manipulated the daylights out of canines but still consider Great Danes and Chihuahuas members of the same species. I am not aware of any experiments in which selective breeding has resulted in the creation of a new species. Even with the above-mentioned viruses, I'm not sure that I've ever heard that a strain of viruses had differentiated itself to a great enough degree to be considered a new species.

The "problem" is that, thus far, speciation experiments have proven the null but people who do not appreciate the scientific process run with the theory as though it is law. To blindly believe that a scientific theory is law based on faith that the hypothesis is true could be construed as a religious assertion. This does not mean that the underlying theory is bogus or non-scientific as we very well may design a replicable experiment that proves speciation."


Still a theory - not a law nor an observable science.

[knox]

Birds are still birds. Whales are still whales. Where is the evolution of one species to another?

[eminart]

Birds are still birds. Whales are still whales. Where is the evolution of one species to another?


In the fossil record? In the genetic record? Surely you've looked into this? Why do whales possess hip bones? As a reptile lover, I'm sure you've seen the feathered dinosaur fossils in their pre-flight form? Do you expect to have a record of every species that ever existed on the planet?

[Minkness]

Chairman totally validated evilution and pointed out that evolution is different than one species becomming another species. Which is a completely different topic. Yes, birds are now birds, but proof shows that certain dinos evolved to become birds while others have evolved to be reptiles. That is a VERY long time ago and hardly something wpuld would 'actively' see today.

Aslo, you agreed that a snake can 'mimic' according to Chairman's separation of verb vs noun.

[knox]

Yes, I know an immense amount about the fossil record, carbon dating, compacted earth layers, and all that jazz. I am a man of science, I have studied this topic for over 30 years, under the teaching of both sides of the fence. Reading, comparing, using my own brain. I have come to the conclusion that none of the theories of evolution OR creation were observed. None can be tested. It is all theory based on theories of fossils based on other peoples' theories of this and that. Not science at all, just theories based on theories.

It's been fun, guys. But we are going in circles now. Carry on.


I still don't think snakes mimic rattlers any more than they mimic a piece of rope. Passively? Sure. But actively? Nope.

Enjoy the rest of the conversation.

[Rattlehead]

Hi Knox,

I have the feeling that you are expecting to witness an evolutionary leap to start believing in evolution. Actually, probably happens often (in microscopic scale, the most) but with ~14 million (discovered) species I'm sure is hard to keep track on all.

I'm writing here just to remind that in 4600 million year old planet, we humans are not even a blink in a lifetime. We will never have a full log of the history of life, but all facts indicate that you, me, and every being in this planet has a common ancestor. Things just don't pop from nowhere.

[RAD House]

Plenty of proof has been presented for evolution, what is your evidence to the opposing side? Now remember the absence of proof is not proof in itself, nor is telling someone a bird is a bird. Chairman, bacteria has been observed becoming a new species in a laboratory for the last 50 years. To accept that animals change genetically over time, but deny that it will never happen enough in the last six billion years to create a new species is ridiculous. Speciation and evolution have been synonymous since Darwin wrote about both in his wonderful book. One is a part of the other and both play into his theory. Knox it does not seem like you fully understand the process of evolution. I would recommend you read On The Origin of Species as a start and appreciate it was written in the 1800s. I think you will find it quite interesting. The man predicted the existence of genetics material 100 years before anyone had any inkling of it.

[knox]

Plenty of proof has been presented for evolution, what is your evidence to the opposing side? Knox it does not seem like you fully understand the process of evolution. I would recommend you read On The Origin of Species as a start

I am not even presenting an opposing side. When did I offer another side?

I have read and re-read Darwin countless times. I understand quite well the process of evolution.

What I don't understand is the blind faith it takes to simply take the hypothesis without the possibility of testing it.

Again, going in circles here. I respect and appreciate all the input you guys gave.

Peace. Shalom. Paz.

Time to chill with my new Speckled King before I hit the gym :bouncy:

[chairman]

I believe that speciation will eventually be proven to be an accurate description of how life differentiated itself. The experiment that proves speciation is likely to involve the use of nonlethal viruses that rewrite DNA in a manner that creates physiological changes in offspring. The offspring will be isolated, bred, possibly introduced to additional viruses, and a result after many generations will be a new species. The experiment will be performed on single cell organisms. This mechanism is a historically plausible one that includes several things we know to be true, such a a virus' ability to change genetic code, and incorporates aspects of evolution such as the effects of changing gene frequencies in isolated populations. As an example, we currently hypothesize that humans and dogs share segments of DNA as a result of our close proximity and the sharing of zoonotic viruses.

I don't think that evidence in the fossil record qualifies as verification, even if you hypothesize the existence of an animal prior to discovering it. The creation of fossils is too random and does not do something very important, namely proving that "precursor" species didn't exist at the same time as their "descendants". There are too many extant species that look like precursors of one another. One group gets stuck in mud, the other doesn't, and voila, in ten million years we assume one predated the other.

This is not to say that fossils haven't been helpful in informing modern theories, just that they don't prove modern theory.

For those needing the additional disclaimer, I believe that scientifically describable and provable phenomenon are a result of a "deity as clockmaker" view of the universe. This view is faith and probably prohibited from being debated here but it will make half of you sleep better at night and the other half more satisfied about how foolish my point of view is. I don't mind either way as long as I do my best to be respectful and you return the courtesy. :)

[chairman]

Since it was posted while I was writing, mind PMing an article describing bacterial speciation? The weather is great for reading indoors.

[RAD House]

Chairman a quick internet search revealed a slew of papers on the speciation of both bacteria in the lab and creatures in the wild. I do not have time to read them at this point to suggest a particular one, so I defer you to the world wide web and the scientific community. I do have a few questions for you. First if speciation is not possible why do we see vestigial appendages in animals like whales? Also why is there so much similarity between certain species? If they were created just as they should be than doesn't it also stand to reason that one type would be found in each niche? Also how do you account for the fact that only fish fossils are found before a certain period, then amphibians seem to appear and so on? I don't understand your view. How can a creature continue to evolve and never change enough to be considered a different species? In my mind this goes against reason. Also Knox as you are so against evolution I would love know what you believe and what proof have that is better than a hundred years of scientific research?

[chairman]

The "gold standard" in the determination of species is expressed in terms of difference between the DNA. We snake keepers have seen a lot of taxonomic reclassification in the last decade as a result of shifting from describing species in terms of physical attributes.

I have been unable to find any studies that demonstrate speciation without hybridization. There are plenty of demonstrations of evolution, including the development of new features. Like the ability to process new energy sources, changes in limb or tail structures, etc. But in the end if you start with E.Coli you end with E.Coli, not E."New guy." Or more exciting, N.New guy. Lots of evolving, no new species that have been verified by DNA testing. Some new species of plants with different appearances but I'm not sure that I've seen confirmation that the DNA changed enough to warrant reclassification (remember, thresholds for describing new species were once pretty lax).

The fossil record and existence of vestigial structures are good indicators that speciation will be proven. I am not arguing that they fail to provide an enlightening narrative; my position is that science requires the failure to prove a null hypothesis.

There are some that choose to believe that the failure to prove the theory cheapens it to the point of absurdity. I am not one of those people. There are countless theories that we have accepted as truth, to our benefit, even when the ultimate benefit of discovering that a theory was wrong is a better explanation of how things really work. I assume that we'll discover that some combination of speciation and hybridization resulted in the flora and fauna we see today. It doesn't make me uncomfortable that it hasn't been proven in a lab yet. It won't make me uncomfortable to find out that it was a different process, either. That'd be like being mad at Einstein for pointing out that several of Newton's descriptions were overly simplistic.

[prairiepanda]

Viruses would not be a good case study since they are not living things and are not capable of self-replication. Bacteria, maybe. But I think studies done on eukaryotes would have more persuasive power, considering how promiscuous prokaryotes tend to be with their genes. Also, you wouldn't want to "rewrite the DNA" because that would introduce the possibility that you actually programmed the organism to speciate. Instead, what you want to do is start with a single naturally-occuring lineage and manipulate the environment they are kept in such that certain traits would give individuals a higher likelihood of reproducing. That is the fundamental principle behind natural selection, after all. Many instances of speciation(indicated by reproductive isolation) have been observed in various Drosophila. A few different mechanisms of reproductive isolation have sprung up in such studies, all arising over many generations from a single lineage.


Here are a couple studies that took different approaches to the issue:

Rice, William R., and George W. Salt. “Speciation via Disruptive Selection on Habitat Preference: Experimental Evidence”. The American Naturalist 131.6 (1988): 911–917.

Diane M. B. Dodd. “Reproductive Isolation as a Consequence of Adaptive Divergence in Drosophila Pseudoobscura”. Evolution 43.6 (1989): 1308–1311.

Coyne, Jerry A., and H. Allen Orr. “Patterns of Speciation in Drosophila”. Evolution 43.2 (1989): 362–381.

Matute, Daniel R. "Reinforcement Can Overcome Gene Flow during Speciation in Drosophila." Current Biology 20.24 (2010): 2229-233. (this one has pretty graphs and charts to look at!)

Nanda, Punita, and Bashisth Narayan Singh. "Behavioural Reproductive Isolation and Speciation in Drosophila." J Biosci Journal of Biosciences 37.2 (2012): 359-74.

You may notice that many of these are quite old; that is because they were repeated independently in their time and modern peer review has still found their conclusions to be sound. There are many more recent studies which investigate the molecular mechanisms of these instances of speciation, but those don't seem particularly helpful to this conversation. They're easy to find, though, if you just search "drosophila speciation" in your library's peer-reviewed journal section. (broadening the search to just "speciation" will bring up many many more studies, old and new, though mostly done on bacteria)

If the above selection of papers are a bit too much reading, this paper by Dr. Singh, who I have met and have great respect for, summarizes and analyzes decades of research:
Singh, Akanksha, and Bashisth N. Singh. "Role of Sexual Selection in Speciation in Drosophila." Genetica 142.1 (2013): 23-41.
(If you want more reading, take a look at those citations! Very thorough!)


All that aside, it is true that speciation hasn't been observed in "the wild", unless you count events resulting from hybridization or polyploidy, which I personally wouldn't. (Yes, hybrids and polyploidy could play a role in evolution, but I personally feel that observing them is not evidence of such) However...I'd say the evidence is overwhelming. We have observed natural selection at work in nature, and speciation in lab...those two combined is pretty solid evidence to support evolution. You have to keep in mind that speciation by natural process would normally take an extremely long time in the absence of major extinction events or large-scale disasters/environmental shifts; longer than we could hope to observe. And bacteria in a natural setting is pretty much impossible to keep track of. So accelerated selective pressure in a laboratory setting is the best we can do.

[RAD House]

Darwin hypothesized that hybridization is in fact one way that speciation can occur. There is one huge problem with hybridization being the only way that speciation can occur. For two species to create a fertile hybrid they must be very closely related ie. have a common ancestor. If from the beginning of time speciation only occurred due to hybridization you would see very little genetic diversity. There must be a source of random genetic addition that leads to the incredible biodiversity we see today.

[chairman]

I was able to find the Coyne and Orr paper and I think its results are consistent with my previous statements. Previous methods for measuring genetic change were accurate but not as precise as DNA and no new species have been evolved in a lab. I believe that they estimated that at the rate their flies were changing they would expect to see a new species in as many as 200,000 years! It'd be no small miracle for that experiment to come to fruition. I'll keep looking for the others but, sadly, not everyone has access to university libraries and it isn't always a worthwhile investment to pay for subscriptions to academic journals.

I'll agree that hybridization cannot be speciation's sole mechanism. Geographic isolation, diet altering pheromones, viruses, exposure to radiation, in-utero/egg deformities that prove survivable/inheritable... I'm not sure that I could brainstorm all the possible mechanisms if I tried.

It will be neat to see if one day snake keepers create a new species based on cornsnake/kingsnake/milksnake/ratsnake hybridization. Maybe that strain will have given up on vibrating its tail?

[RAD House]

A species separated by geographic isolation still need a source of genetic variance, it is really just a factor that can speed up speciation not cause it. You have to realize that any change seen must be inheritable ie involve a genetic change also called a mutation. All the other examples you give are of outside influence causing a mutation. Viruses have been show to cause genetic mutation in the case of HPV and ovarian cancer. On a side note my Imperial pueblan does not and has never vibrated it tails, even when in defensive mode.

[Pareeeee]

This has been an interesting read.

I will answer the OP first. I do believe animals mimic other animals - by instinct, not by choice. "Mimic animals" don't copy other animals on purpose. A milk snake instinctually rattles its tail to scare off predators not because it saw a rattlesnake do it but because it just knows to do it by instinct, because it has worked for millennia.

As for the evolution vs creationism debate, I'm not going to get into it other that to state my brief opinion. I'm a creationist. I don't believe in Macro Evolution (i.e. a fish becoming an frog), but I do believe in evolution within a kind (good examples would be Darwin's Finches, dog breeds, equines, etc...) I also believe in natural selection.

Due to Rule #7 I won't get into a debate over it on the open forums. If anyone wants to discuss my opinion in detail I will only do so over PM.

Please keep Rule #7 in mind, and keep things civil. :)