philosophical tought about Darwin's theory

Hey guys,

a thread I answered before about handling snakes (http://ball-pythons.net/forums/showt...python-relaxed.) actually made me think a little bit.
If we consider that dogs cats and other pets have been kept for hundreds of years as pets. Like also horses have been trained for thousands of years to get them where they are now. They know how to listen, how to act in the present of humans, etc... If we check how long the reptile industrie is going on and how long people have been keeping snakes as pets. Would it be possible that also our snakes would get more and more comfortable with handling as the hobby goes further in time? I don't mean like sit and roll over trick's but you know, getting less stressed in our presence, getting attached to the owner etc..

Myself, I think it would be possible. If you see the progress in some of the nippy little bastards. Most of the time when they grow (especially when treated right and handled regularly) they kinda get used to getting handled. Could this, over a whole lot of time (i'm really talking about 100 years minimum), also change there insticts like it has done with dogs (check wild dogs vs. labrador). I really think there is a point in the family tree where the cause of habit will take over the instinct. Not necessary all the way, but at least to the point where a dog gets to enjoy a nice chuck over the head...

What do you guys/girls think?

I do agree to a point. I think that the "wild" if possible would have to be bread out of them as in horses and like.

Anything's possible. But domesticating Mammals and Reptiles are 2 different playing fields. Huge difference between their instinct and "intelligence" levels.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RyanT

Anything's possible. But domesticating Mammals and Reptiles are 2 different playing fields. Huge difference between their instinct and "intelligence" levels.

---

Agree on that one. though, on the other hand, reptiles are one of the most intelligent creatures on the earth. Considering that they are the oldest species to still survive on our planet with the least of the resources....

I understand what you're saying here, but I'd have to disagree, even though it makes perfect sense. Reptiles and other herps are simpler in comparison to mammals. Mammals can observe and learn from their surroundings, and can also pick up habits. Herps, on the other hand, are much older and more simpler creatures. Because of this, they act purely on instinct rather than impulse. You can teach a dog to sit by saying 'sit,' and giving him a reward whenever he gets it right. But a snake, on the other hand, won't ever be able to obey a command, no matter how many pinkies you give him. Their brain just doesn't work that way.
As far as herps growing more and more confident with being handled over a few decades or even centuries, I highly doubt it will ever be possible, simply because they cannot learn.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShamelessAardvark

I understand what you're saying here, but I'd have to disagree, even though it makes perfect sense. Reptiles and other herps are simpler in comparison to mammals. Mammals can observe and learn from their surroundings, and can also pick up habits. Herps, on the other hand, are much older and more simpler creatures. Because of this, they act purely on instinct rather than impulse. You can teach a dog to sit by saying 'sit,' and giving him a reward whenever he gets it right. But a snake, on the other hand, won't ever be able to obey a command, no matter how many pinkies you give him. Their brain just doesn't work that way.
As far as herps growing more and more confident with being handled over a few decades or even centuries, I highly doubt it will ever be possible, simply because they cannot learn.

---

isn't that what the time is for. For the evolution to change the brain. That is why i am talking about hundreds of years. You can't teach a monkey to sing in 2 years. But would you be able to get a snake to appreciate the owner in 200 years???

The problem is that snakes are not herd animals nor pack animals. That desire to belong to a group is what makes it easier to domesticate horses and dogs and such. Reptiles have no desire to please even other reptiles generally, so it's much harder. It's much easier to modify an existing behavior than to create a whole new one.

I do think that IF keepers began choosing only the most calm of snakes to breed, you might get a line of snake that hatches out to be more mellow and accepting. But it wouldn't "appreciate" the owner, nor be a 'partner' to a human like a horse or dog.

Domestication is only the tinyest of steps in something as long term as evolution. Controlled breeding can change certain aspects but the base animal is still the same. Dogs are still pack canids. Horses are still herd beasts.

So.... in a way, you could influance the temperment possibly to a small degree. But changing the entire nature of the animal wouldn't be possible in just the domestication process.

What if there is something to it though? Lets say you had a clutch of ball pythons, from the get go they are getting used to having been handled and acclimated. Much different from one coming from the wild, where it hatches and pretty much heads off on its own and will continue to function on that instinct to survive. Would it not be possible in theory for the part of the snakes brain that functions on fear/defense could eventually get bred out of its system? Since from such a young age they are understanding, there is no danger, only hands, food and hiding.

Like you said, it wouldn't be something that happened over night.

I dont necessarily believe in this, but in theory it sounds plausible it could happen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by seang89

What if there is something to it though? Lets say you had a clutch of ball pythons, from the get go they are getting used to having been handled and acclimated. Much different from one coming from the wild, where it hatches and pretty much heads off on its own and will continue to function on that instinct to survive. Would it not be possible in theory for the part of the snakes brain that functions on fear/defense could eventually get bred out of its system? Since from such a young age they are understanding, there is no danger, only hands, food and hiding.

Like you said, it wouldn't be something that happened over night.

I dont necessarily believe in this, but in theory it sounds plausible it could happen.

---

Absolutely this could happen. To the dog/cat/horse theory that has been presented. Do you really think that dogs just appeared and were automatically pack animals seeking each other out? I'm sure it took time for them to evolve and realize that seeking each other out meant protection. And then in one to two thousand years we have produced tiny fluffy dogs that could barely live a day in the wild without a human feeding them. Given reptiles ARE a totally different area, but I think this is completely plausible.

I think that "unnatural" selection is already going on in captive bred snakes, exclusive of coloring.

The process of captive breeding is going to select for a different set of traits than that which nature would select for. Nature favors an animal with strong self-protective/avoidance instincts and we breed from animals which can adapt to captivity so well that they will reproduce in a setting where many wild animals won't even eat.

I don't expect an animal that not only isn't a pack animal but in which maternal nurture ends at hatch to develop dog-like affection through generations of captive breeding because the instinct isn't there to be exploited. What I do expect is to see more animals which aren't adversely affected by close contact with humans and which are increasingly tolerant of handling. IOW, animals what would have perished on the dinner buffet of nature.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thomasK

Myself, I think it would be possible. If you see the progress in some of the nippy little bastards. Most of the time when they grow (especially when treated right and handled regularly) they kinda get used to getting handled. Could this, over a whole lot of time (i'm really talking about 100 years minimum), also change there insticts like it has done with dogs (check wild dogs vs. labrador).

---

First of all, I believe that snake domestication is possible (obviously to a lesser extent than naturally social animals), but I don't think it's something that is going to happen.

Your point that I boldfaced is completely irrelevant. A nippy snake that has calmed down with lots of handling is not a domesticated snake; its offspring will start out just as nippy. The way to go about domesticating snakes would be to breed ONLY the snakes that are completely docile from the get go; selective breeding for temperament.

There are two reasons why I don't think this will ever happen:

1) There is no demand for snakes to be domesticated. "Mean" snakes are manageable (even big ones, if you know what you're doing), and breeders don't hesitate to breed them. Aggressive dogs are usually put down, and even if not, they are not bred (with some disgusting exceptions in recent history). To put it simply, wild snakes make good pets, whereas wild dogs and cats do not.

2) At least right now, breeders are focusing entirely on visual genetics. Very few keepers breed for temperament. And like I said, there's no reason they should; there is no demand for more docile snakes because many are already docile to begin with.

IMO the training of animals is more Pavlov then Darwin. Also brain function and capacity would be a big issue. You are born with instincts they are not learned over time. I think the present captive bred and born ball pythons are as good as it's going to get.

Training animals has nothing to do with Darwin or evolution. That's trained behaviors vs genetics. You cannot affect genetics by doing anything to behaviors or surgical alterations.

I.E. cropping a dobermans' ears generation after generation does not lead to shorter ears on puppies. Likewise, training dobermans generation after generation doesn't cause puppies to be born smarter.

Choosing the animals that learn fastest, or have the shortest ears would result in changing the genetics of the breed. So choosing the tamest of the ball pythons hatched to breed would lead to more placid babies being hatched. But ball pythons(especially) are already so very placid, I don't know that you could really affect their nature through selective breeding.

If someone was going to try it, they should probably choose a bitey type of snake like some of the tree pythons/boas that are snippy in nature. Breeding the most placid of those only might lead to an eventual 'line' of nice ones that allow themselves to be handled without fuss.

Rattlesnakes in some areas have begun to not rattle in warning, because rattlesnakes who do rattle are sought out and killed. That will eventually lead to non-rattling snakes being the only ones surviving and breeding, and passing on the lack of instinct to rattle when threatened. (Assuming the non-rattling behavior is true and not a myth).

Interesting thread! I think we are seeing evidence of this in Florida. Early explorers in Florida documented the extremely aggressive behavior of alligators they encountered, very different from alligator behavior we see today. William Bartram wrote of being attacked repeatedly, with alligators attacking his boat when he explored the St Johns river in the 1790s, and described them as "terrible monsters". The human population in Florida kept increasing, with agressive alligators being killed as settlers spread across the state. Almost 200 years after Bartram's expedition, herpetologist Archie Carr speculated that the widespread eradication of alligators over a period of two centuries had left a small gene pool that is more docile. Only the shy survived - the ones that hid, that kept well away from humans. There are many, many alligators in Florida today, but they survive only if humans are unaware of their presence. We are still "selecting for shy" by capturing and killing "nuisance" gators.