What's the difference between a Coral Glow and a Banana?

I've heard that there's a controversy as to whether or not the two morphs are even genetically variant in any way. Anyone have any picture examples of phenotypic differences?

their not, even brock and kevin agree they are the same thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OhhWatALoser

their not, even brock and kevin agree they are the same thing.

---

Okay, cool, that's what I was thinking... Because you'd have to be some sort of crazy professional to be able to prove that they're different. And if the crazy professionals say that they aren't, then there's really no argument, haha. ;P

Can anyone explain why they are not instead of getting behind it because a big name said so?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk 4

The originators of those morphs are Kevin for the coral glows and Will Slough for the banana, Kevin had hatched quite a few. I think Brock has both lines and has also hatched quite a few so is in a position to make comparisons between a lot of different babies from both lines.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kodieh

Can anyone explain why they are not instead of getting behind it because a big name said so?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk 4

---

virtually impossible to disprove a negative

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarkS

The originators of those morphs are Kevin for the coral glows and Will Slough for the banana, Kevin had hatched quite a few. I think Brock has both lines and has also hatched quite a few so is in a position to make comparisons between a lot of different babies from both lines.

---

Can you still provide evidence that states they aren't besides asserting we should believe a big name cause they say so?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wienkeg

virtually impossible to disprove a negative

---

So, no one can prove they aren't. We should just take someone's word for it.

Got it.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk 4

They look the same to me, the combos look the same to me, unique black specking and unique sex ratios makes me think they are the same. I would guess that someone will produce a super from a banana x coral glow breeding this year or next. I have a female coral glow building right now that was bred to a banana so maybe I'll get lucky and produce a super. That's if they are the same of course :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kodieh

Can you still provide evidence that states they aren't besides asserting we should believe a big name cause they say so?



So, no one can prove they aren't. We should just take someone's word for it.

Got it.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk 4

---

Or you can chill and see how it plays out instead of demanding answers and evidence that no one yet has, or is willing to share...I'm not sure where you got the impression you're the keeper of the keys, but no one needs to tell you**anything**if you're so curious, prove it out yourself...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sho220

Or you can chill and see how it plays out instead of demanding answers and evidence that no one yet has, or is willing to share...I'm not sure where you got the impression you're the keeper of the keys, but no one needs to tell you **anything**if you're so curious, prove it out yourself...

---

^^^^what he said^^^^ Every now and then you always get that guy with a god complex. It happens.

God complex? Lol, sho this is the second time you've become a little child around me over nothing.

Anyway, I can demand all I want. If no one can give me them, then obviously no has any business making observations. Or, if they want to make observations, it's their opinion and they're no better than myself.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk 4

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kodieh

Can anyone explain why they are not instead of getting behind it because a big name said so?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk 4

---

I'd like to submit two pieces:

One of the big names thinks everything he owns is special and unique, but yet is even in agreeance this time it is the same.

Both morphs have a breeding anomaly not seen before with any other animals. The chances of that happening to separate mutations can't even be calculated because the mechanics behind it are still unknown.

or you could just look at them..... yup their the same.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OhhWatALoser

I'd like to submit two pieces:

One of the big names thinks everything he owns is special and unique, but yet is even in agreeance this time it is the same.

Both morphs have a breeding anomaly not seen before with any other animals. The chances of that happening to separate mutations can't even be calculated because the mechanics behind it are still unknown.

or you could just look at them..... yup their the same.

---

There's half of a thoughtful response, thank you.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk 4

It was explained to me that they are indeed the same morph. Just that two separate breeders got them at the same time and one named his a coral glow and the other named his a banana. I have heard this from several different breeders. I also would like to see if any super forms are hatched or cross breed the two "different" morphs and see what if any new characterstics come out of it. Just my opinion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OhhWatALoser

I'd like to submit two pieces:

One of the big names thinks everything he owns is special and unique, but yet is even in agreeance this time it is the same.

Both morphs have a breeding anomaly not seen before with any other animals. The chances of that happening to separate mutations can't even be calculated because the mechanics behind it are still unknown.

or you could just look at them..... yup their the same.

---

I agree here because its the same thing with calling a yellow belly a goblin, its the same exact thing. You can even say the same thing with ODs and the tangerine line. This is just to name a few, there also many more lines we can sit here and debate about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by S.I.R.

It was explained to me that they are indeed the same morph. Just that two separate breeders got them at the same time and one named his a coral glow and the other named his a banana. I have heard this from several different breeders. I also would like to see if any super forms are hatched or cross breed the two "different" morphs and see what if any new characterstics come out of it. Just my opinion.

---

I also agree here because my buddy Tom was the first one to get coralglow/bananas in the pittsburgh area a cpl years back. I call em Bananas and he calls them Coralglows not one time has he corrected me when I called his 5,000 spider YB coralglow a spider YB Banana.

I would like to add how the market has been dropping dramatically in coralglows and bananas. Most of the for sale adds on Kingsnake and Fauna now say something like Banana for sale same thing as CoralGlows and vise versa.

Learn something new everyday. Good thread. Thanks folks. :)

The biggest diff is the banana came along, was mass produced and brought coral glow prices to their knees:gj:

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, guess what, IT'S A DUCK :gj:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kodieh

Can anyone explain why they are not instead of getting behind it because a big name said so?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk 4

---

my biggest argument for them being the same genetic mutation: the skewed sex ratio in both of their offspring. this has never been seen before with any other mutation in balls (or any other mutation in anything as far as i'm aware). on top of looking the exact same.. it's kind of undeniable isn't it? has nothing to do with what the big breeders say. if they swore to me they were two different mutations, i would still stand firm in believing they're the same.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSnakeGeek

my biggest argument for them being the same genetic mutation: the skewed sex ratio in both of their offspring. this has never been seen before with any other mutation in balls (or any other mutation in anything as far as i'm aware). on top of looking the exact same.. it's kind of undeniable isn't it? has nothing to do with what the big breeders say. if they swore to me they were two different mutations, i would still stand firm in believing they're the same.

---

There's something about super snows hatching males in all conditions in leopard geckos right now, but I'm not 100 percent on that.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk 4

Its kind off like butters and lessors

you cannot prove that they are the same morph, but the reason for this is NOT that they are different, the reason is that logic only allows you to prove certain things. and this is not something you can prove.


well, actually, now you can, with genetic sequencing. that aside....

what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. since there is no evidence of the morphs being different, the claim that they are different can be dismissed.

claiming that they are the same, until someone actually comes up with evidence that shows that they are not the same, is a good position to take.

like, with god, ähem, no, i mean, fire-breathing dragons: i say im quite sure there is no such thing, and i will stand by that position until someone can prove that fire-breathing dragons do exist. and when people claim that fire-breathing dragons do exist, i ask for evidence, and as long as there is no evidence, i am under no obligation to further consider the claim. after all, if fire-breathing dragons are real, there should be some evidence. and if banana and coral glow are not the same morph, there also should be some evidence.

this is also consistent with occams razor: when different hypotheses compete, the one that requires fewer assumptions to explain all the facts should be selected. the facts are that we have BPs with new cool visuals, black dots, weird sex ratios and stuff. one hypothesis says that its a morph, and it has two different names. the other hypothesis says that its two morphs, with one name for each. the first one is better because it explains the facts just as nicely as the second one, but only assumes one new morph instead of two. as soon as new facts come along that require two seperate morphs in order to be explained, the first hypothesis would no longer work because it fails to explain all the facts, occams razor would no longer apply, and the second hypothesis, that banana and coral glow are different, would win the battle.

so there are no fire-breathing dragons, and banana and coral glow are the same morph. prove me wrong and i stand corrected.

*puts his philosophers hat aside*

Morph has a vague definition. Sometimes it is referring to the phenotype. Banana and CG have the same phenotype. Proving without a doubt they are the same morph.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OhhWatALoser

Morph has a vague definition. Sometimes it is referring to the phenotype. Banana and CG have the same phenotype. Proving without a doubt they are the same morph.

---

*puts on philosphers hat*

actually its not proven at all. lets say, 20 years from now, some scientist figures out that all bananas have a certain proteine in their blood, that coral glows dont have. or 10 years from now, some kind of disease comes along, some BP superbug, and coral glows turn out to be resistent, but not bananas. you cannot prove without a doubt that something like this will never happen, you just dont know. yes its unlikely, but its not impossible. and something like that would be part of the phenotype, even if they still look the same.

the hypothesis that they are the same morph can be disproven, its falsifiable. but the hypothesis works, and as long as its not disproven, its the best one. proving stuff is for mathematicians.

*puts philosophers hat aside*

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pythonfriend

*puts on philosphers hat*

actually its not proven at all. lets say, 20 years from now, some scientist figures out that all bananas have a certain proteine in their blood, that coral glows dont have. or 10 years from now, some kind of disease comes along, some BP superbug, and coral glows turn out to be resistent, but not bananas. you cannot prove without a doubt that something like this will never happen, you just dont know. yes its unlikely, but its not impossible. and something like that would be part of the phenotype, even if they still look the same.

the hypothesis that they are the same morph can be disproven, its falsifiable. but the hypothesis works, and as long as its not disproven, its the best one. proving stuff is for mathematicians.

*puts philosophers hat aside*

---

phenotype - noun
BIOLOGY1.
the set of observable characteristics of an individual resulting from the interaction of its genotype with the environment.

Blood proteins and immune responses do not fell under the definition of phenotype, you cannot see them. You are referring to genotype.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Badgemash

phenotype - noun
BIOLOGY1.
the set of observable characteristics of an individual resulting from the interaction of its genotype with the environment.

Blood proteins and immune responses do not fell under the definition of phenotype, you cannot see them. You are referring to genotype.

---

ob·ser·va·tion (http://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/obreve.gifbhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/lprime.gifzhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/schwa.gifr-vhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/amacr.gifhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/prime.gifshhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/schwa.gifn)n.1. a. The act or faculty of observing.
b. The fact of being observed.

2. a. The act of noting and recording something, such as a phenomenon, with instruments.
b. The result or record of such notation: a meteorological observation.

3. A comment or remark. See Synonyms at comment.
4. An inference or a judgment that is acquired from or based on observing.


---------

anything that can be measured with any device or instrument is observable. that includes not just your eyes, but also your ears, sense of smell, your infrared temp gun, the hubble space telescope, the results from gas chomatography or X-ray crystallography and a multitude of other things. we have no human eyes on mars, yet we observe a lot. thats how it is in science, and a scientific definition of "phenotype" would obviously utilize the scientific definition of "observation". no one has ever seen an atom, or a neutrino, or a supermassive black hole, but we can observe them. thats good enough, our eyes are quite limited anyway.

Morph still has a vague definition, I'm going to use in in referring to the characteristic I can personally observe, as most still do. Now proven without a doubt. :P

Pythonfriend, I think you're getting a bit buried in semantics and missing the main idea, especially when there's no properly constrained definition of "morph."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Badgemash

Pythonfriend, I think you're getting a bit buried in semantics and missing the main idea, especially when there's no properly constrained definition of "morph."

---

not semantics, its all about ontology.

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

Quote:

---

Ontology is the philosophical study of the nature of being, becoming, existence, or reality, as well as the basic categories of being and their relations. Traditionally listed as a part of the major branch of philosophy known as metaphysics, ontology deals with questions concerning what entities exist or can be said to exist, and how such entities can be grouped, related within a hierarchy, and subdivided according to similarities and differences.

---

and when you look at the pointless quarrels in the first two pages of this thread, and since it is all about identifying if banana or coral glow are two seperate entities or just one, this is right on the money. i am sorting out all the crap that came up during the first two pages of the thread by introducing the philosophical analysis that is required to properly sort it out.


and my conclusion is simple: banana and coral glow are the same unless proven otherwise. and when really big and experienced breeders say they see no difference, this is not an appeal to authority, it merely shows that banana and coral glow being seperate morphs is unlikely.

for example there was:

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

http://ball-pythons.net/forums/image...quote_icon.png Originally Posted by MarkS http://ball-pythons.net/forums/image...post-right.png

The originators of those morphs are Kevin for the coral glows and Will Slough for the banana, Kevin had hatched quite a few. I think Brock has both lines and has also hatched quite a few so is in a position to make comparisons between a lot of different babies from both lines.

---

Can you still provide evidence that states they aren't besides asserting we should believe a big name cause they say so?

Quote:

---

http://ball-pythons.net/forums/image...quote_icon.png Originally Posted by wienkeg http://ball-pythons.net/forums/image...post-right.png

virtually impossible to disprove a negative

---

So, no one can prove they aren't. We should just take someone's word for it.

Got it.

---

i just had to step in with some philosophy. when people demand someone proves something that is FUNDAMENTALLY UNPROVABLE, how can you sort it out without going a bit deeper into philosophy? i am a science nerd, and also quite a nerd about the history of science and natural philosophy. on the side, i also showed why the most rational position to take when it comes to religion is that god does not exist, unless you are convinced that there is evidence that god does exist.

for me, on the specific issue, the thread is pointless anyway: banana and coral glow are identical until PROVEN otherwise. that they are identical CANNOT be proven. (well, with genetic sequencing actually its now possible, but to do that beyond reasonable doubt would require us to sequence the genome of quite a lot of ball pythons). but that they ever turn out to be dissimilar is extremely unlikely. i delivered the tools that are required to understand why that is the case. but the tools i delivered have other uses as well, you can apply them to questions like: did aliens visit earth? does god exist? does homeopathy work? should i or should i not vaccinate my children against diseases that could kill them? is Uri Geller for real? what really happened on 9/11? is global warming / climate change for real?

what i did is nothing more or less than a decent reality check. if you want to argue, and we all like that, better be properly prepared.

basically, tools for correct thought, that were missing in this thread and were necessary to settle the issue on hand.

Philosophy is for people who don't want real jobs. If they cut Phil out of all colleges, nothing would be different.

That being said, OWAL is right and you are splitting wrong hairs.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kodieh

Philosophy is for people who don't want real jobs. If they cut Phil out of all colleges, nothing would be different.

That being said, OWAL is right and you are splitting wrong hairs.

---

unfortunately the scientific method is a part of philosophy, so, if you cut it out, you can no longer explain why Karl Poppers concept of falsifiability is so damn important, or why Occams Razor makes sense. thats the one thing science cannot explain: why the scientific method works and is useful in the first place. deprive students of that, and your university will have a hard time when it comes to producing top research scientists. if you want students to be able to differentiate between good scientific theories and weak theories, science cannot do it. without philosophy, you can teach students all you want to teach about science, but you cannot explain why homeopaths or 9/11 truthers are wrong and why their theories are less valid than general relativity or the standard model of particle physics.

and OWAL was wrong when he said that it is proven that CG and banana are the same morph - it cannot be proven. (at least not without genetic sequencing of BPs, bananas, and coral glows, and careful analysis of the resulting data). explaining why that is the case is not possible with science alone.

take away philosophy, and in the worst case you get "scientists" that waste their time trying to prove or disprove hypotheses that cannot be proven or disproven.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pythonfriend

unfortunately the scientific method is a part of philosophy, so, if you cut it out, you can no longer explain why Karl Poppers concept of falsifiability is so damn important, or why Occams Razor makes sense. thats the one thing science cannot explain: why the scientific method works and is useful in the first place. deprive students of that, and your university will have a hard time when it comes to producing top research scientists. if you want students to be able to differentiate between good scientific theories and weak theories, science cannot do it. without philosophy, you can teach students all you want to teach about science, but you cannot explain why homeopaths or 9/11 truthers are wrong and why their theories are less valid than general relativity or the standard model of particle physics.

and OWAL was wrong when he said that it is proven that CG and banana are the same morph - it cannot be proven. (at least not without genetic sequencing of BPs, bananas, and coral glows, and careful analysis of the resulting data). explaining why that is the case is not possible with science alone.

take away philosophy, and in the worst case you get "scientists" that waste their time trying to prove or disprove hypotheses that cannot be proven or disproven.

---

There's been no new ideas in a long time. Base Phil is fine, degrees are not.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk

Both founders of the CG and Banana have already officially stated that both are the same mutation.

Both can be crossed to produce the same homozygous form as their 'pure' counter parts.

Super CG, Super Banana, and CG Banana are the same.


Both have the same effects on different morphs and have the same strange offspring sex ratios, which occurs to no other morph to date.

Many people who sell CG and Banana no longer differentiate between the two and just call them 'Coral Glow/Banana'.

CG and Banana are just different imports of the same genetic mutation.

Lesser/Butter any one?

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pythonfriend

and OWAL was wrong when he said that it is proven that CG and banana are the same morph - it cannot be proven. (at least not without genetic sequencing of BPs, bananas, and coral glows, and careful analysis of the resulting data). explaining why that is the case is not possible with science alone.

---

Just semantics, if someone said they are the same gene, same mutation, same piece of DNA, ect. you could stick to your claim. Keep using the ambiguous word "morph" tho.....

I don't know if the pastel my pastel produced is actually the same, but I'm sure as hell going to claim it is. Are the "ifs and buts" even worth talking about, until something is actually observed?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pythonfriend

not semantics, its all about ontology.

for me, on the specific issue, the thread is pointless anyway: banana and coral glow are identical until PROVEN otherwise. that they are identical CANNOT be proven. (well, with genetic sequencing actually its now possible, but to do that beyond reasonable doubt would require us to sequence the genome of quite a lot of ball pythons). but that they ever turn out to be dissimilar is extremely unlikely. i delivered the tools that are required to understand why that is the case. but the tools i delivered have other uses as well, you can apply them to questions like: did aliens visit earth? does god exist? does homeopathy work? should i or should i not vaccinate my children against diseases that could kill them? is Uri Geller for real? what really happened on 9/11? is global warming / climate change for real?

what i did is nothing more or less than a decent reality check. if you want to argue, and we all like that, better be properly prepared.

basically, tools for correct thought, that were missing in this thread and were necessary to settle the issue on hand.

---

No, I meant semantics - the branch of linguistics and logic concerned with meaning. We are not discussing the existence of god, vaccines, or aliens, nor are we discussing philosophy. We are discussing whether there are any known differences between two groups of snakes called coral glows and bananas, no one has to date shown any evidence that there are. The generally accepted definition of the term "morph" within the bp community is a set of visual characteristics that are passed from parent to offspring, therefore coral glow and banana are the same morph until the time the definition of the term "morph" is either more tightly constrained or changed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pythonfriend

unfortunately the scientific method is a part of philosophy, so, if you cut it out, you can no longer explain why Karl Poppers concept of falsifiability is so damn important, or why Occams Razor makes sense. thats the one thing science cannot explain: why the scientific method works and is useful in the first place. deprive students of that, and your university will have a hard time when it comes to producing top research scientists. if you want students to be able to differentiate between good scientific theories and weak theories, science cannot do it. without philosophy, you can teach students all you want to teach about science, but you cannot explain why homeopaths or 9/11 truthers are wrong and why their theories are less valid than general relativity or the standard model of particle physics.

and OWAL was wrong when he said that it is proven that CG and banana are the same morph - it cannot be proven. (at least not without genetic sequencing of BPs, bananas, and coral glows, and careful analysis of the resulting data). explaining why that is the case is not possible with science alone.

take away philosophy, and in the worst case you get "scientists" that waste their time trying to prove or disprove hypotheses that cannot be proven or disproven.

---

I get that you like natural history and are a self proclaimed science geek, but I am an actual scientist at a tier 1 research university, so I'm going to go ahead and clear up some of your apparent confusion. The scientific method is NOT a part of philosophy, it a set of procedures and methods which ensure that experimental results are measurable and repeatable. The scientific review process actually does a very nice job of differentiating between quality work and shoddy work, that is why journals are peer reviewed. No one in my department, or any other department that I'm aware of encourages our students to take philosophy, we do however stongly encourage developing writing skills. If you want an education or job at a top research institution you'd better be able to write grant proposals, because getting consistant funding and getting published are the keys to success.

Science is based on empirical, measurable evidence, philosophy and religion are the diciplines that involve the impossible to prove or disprove theories.

"What's the difference between a Coral Glow and a Banana?"

One is a fruit. :thumbup: :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by satomi325

Both founders of the CG and Banana have already officially stated that both are the same mutation.

Both can be crossed to produce the same homozygous form as their 'pure' counter parts.

Super CG, Super Banana, and CG Banana are the same.


Both have the same effects on different morphs and have the same strange offspring sex ratios, which occurs to no other morph to date.

Many people who sell CG and Banana no longer differentiate between the two and just call them 'Coral Glow/Banana'.

CG and Banana are just different imports of the same genetic mutation.

Lesser/Butter any one?

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

---

Ding, ding..... on the mark ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by satomi325

Both founders of the CG and Banana have already officially stated that both are the same mutation.

Both can be crossed to produce the same homozygous form as their 'pure' counter parts.

Super CG, Super Banana, and CG Banana are the same.


Both have the same effects on different morphs and have the same strange offspring sex ratios, which occurs to no other morph to date.

Many people who sell CG and Banana no longer differentiate between the two and just call them 'Coral Glow/Banana'.

CG and Banana are just different imports of the same genetic mutation.

Lesser/Butter any one?

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

---

Has anyone produced a coral glow x banana super?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Badgemash

I get that you like natural history and are a self proclaimed science geek, but I am an actual scientist at a tier 1 research university, so I'm going to go ahead and clear up some of your apparent confusion. The scientific method is NOT a part of philosophy, it a set of procedures and methods which ensure that experimental results are measurable and repeatable. The scientific review process actually does a very nice job of differentiating between quality work and shoddy work, that is why journals are peer reviewed. No one in my department, or any other department that I'm aware of encourages our students to take philosophy, we do however stongly encourage developing writing skills. If you want an education or job at a top research institution you'd better be able to write grant proposals, because getting consistant funding and getting published are the keys to success.

Science is based on empirical, measurable evidence, philosophy and religion are the diciplines that involve the impossible to prove or disprove theories.

---

thats very interesting, but still.... when you look at the history of modern science and the history of the scientific method, many important aspects were developed and added by philosophers. For example, the last important piece was added by Karl Popper no sooner than 1934. before that, there were some good and legitimate scientific theories that are still valid, but there were also theories floating around in the scientific mainstream that are now completely discredited as pseudoscience. with his concept of falsifiability, he added the last of the characteristics that a modern scientific theory must fulfill, and he was a philosopher. also, science itself started out as natural philosophy, a branch of philosophy that made certain assumptions (for example: reality can be understood) and developed a set of guidelines (for example: empiricism is the way to understand reality) that need to be followed. this specific subset of philosophy eventually evolved into modern science, and the assumptions and rules these natural philosophers worked out evolved into the scientific method.

based on that history, a strong case can be made that science still is a specific philosophy, and that the adherents of that specific philosophy are called scientists.

im not saying that people studying science should also study philosophy in general, (i agree that much of it is a waste of time), just the history of science, that would be helpful, and half of that history is philosophy. heck, the royal society was founded by groups of physicians and natural philosophers that attempted to learn more about the world by doing tabletop experiments and live demonstrations. today its made up of top research scientists and theoretical scientists. these philosophers also started the first scientific journal in 1665, the philosophical transactions of the royal society, since 1800 known as the proceedings of the royal society, today the royal society still publishes a number of prestigious peer-reviewed scientific journals.

An awful lot of self-proclaimed intelligence here being proclaimed with an awful lot of logic gaps and terrible spelling errors.

It's quite likely they are the same. It's likely beyond reasonable doubt. It will be very shocking if someone does in fact prove out that they are different by showing that they occur on different alleles.


Lastly,


*I put on my robe and wizard hat*

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrLang

An awful lot of self-proclaimed intelligence here being proclaimed with an awful lot of logic gaps and terrible spelling errors.

It's quite likely they are the same. It's likely beyond reasonable doubt. It will be very shocking if someone does in fact prove out that they are different by showing that they occur on different alleles.


Lastly,


*I put on my robe and wizard hat*

---

Finally, something I understood!
I'm not a philosopher or a scientist, I breed snakes, but I love the debate.