the snake/human relationship

So I know everyone says "snakes cant love" and most people will say that snakes dont recognize their owners over other people. But it is also common knowledge that snakes "see" heat, correct? So is it possible that a snake could learn to recognize one person's heat pattern, thus allowing it to identify its owner?

Look at the thermal imaging picture:
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/61/16...09aa3d.jpg?v=0
There are two people in that picture and they each have a subtly different heat signature. Perhaps a snake learns to differentiate between the heat pattern of its primary care-taker and other heat blobs.

The only reason I suggest this is because my oldest, Harlett, always tries to come back to me if I let someone else hold her. For example, yesterday my sister and I were walking, sister was holding Harlett, and the snake stretched out from her shoulder onto mine. She does this every time she is given to someone other than myself. Why would she do that if she didnt recognize me as her "safe person"? There has to be SOMETHING that allows a snake to imprint upon one person or another.

Anyone with me on this?

I think its pretty certain they can differentiate between people. My guess would be that they do it by scent, though. I would be surprised if their thermal sensing abilities have enough resolution to recognize faces, etc

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bearhart

I think its pretty certain they can differentiate between people. My guess would be that they do it by scent, though. I would be surprised if their thermal sensing abilities have enough resolution to recognize faces, etc

---

Where do you get your information from?

I've always heard people say that they canNOT differentiate between humans. But you're saying its pretty certain. I'm so confused.

jglass38 did you have an opinion on it? I'm still waiting on replies... :( I'm really curious to know what everyone thinks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mindibun

jglass38 did you have an opinion on it? I'm still waiting on replies... :( I'm really curious to know what everyone thinks.

---

The reason I asked is Bearhart seems to make a lot of claims and provide a lot of information without any basis whatsoever. My feeling is they have no ability to recognize one heat source from another.

I dont know about the heat source part but I agree that they can tell the difference between people. IMO. My snakes act different towards me than to anyone else. I am leaning towards the smell theory. But what do I know I am only basing on a year of observation.

I need to research this smell theory. Can anyone shed some light on it, and as to why you all lean towards the sense of smell rather than "sight"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mindibun

I need to research this smell theory. Can anyone shed some light on it, and as to why you all lean towards the sense of smell rather than "sight"?

---

I'm not sure either theory has much merit. Ball Pythons have poor eyesight. They rely on their sense of smell (through their tongues) and their heat pits to track prey. They can tell you aren't a prey item because you don't smell like a rat. However, I don't believe that they can tell your smell from another person's smell. Their brains just aren't advanced enough in that way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jglass38

My feeling is they have no ability to recognize one heat source from another.

---

Yeah and even if they did, would they really care? Would it really matter to them?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jglass38

I'm not sure either theory has much merit. Ball Pythons have poor eyesight. They rely on their sense of smell (through their tongues) and their heat pits to track prey. They can tell you aren't a prey item because you don't smell like a rat. However, I don't believe that they can tell your smell from another person's smell. Their brains just aren't advanced enough in that way.

---

Then what is your reasoning for this statement?

"For example, yesterday my sister and I were walking, sister was holding Harlett, and the snake stretched out from her shoulder onto mine. She does this every time she is given to someone other than myself."

My snakes do that almost every time...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SnakieMom

Then what is your reasoning for this statement?

"For example, yesterday my sister and I were walking, sister was holding Harlett, and the snake stretched out from her shoulder onto mine. She does this every time she is given to someone other than myself."

My snakes do that almost every time...

---

My guess would be that she has a warmer heat signature. But my guesses are based on knowledge of how snakes operate and hers is based on anthropomorphization.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jglass38

Where do you get your information from?

---

Just from reading lots of accounts from various sources. IIRC there was a post by one of the members yesterday about a WC that would only relax when held by one person.

Whether or not they care is an entirely different matter...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SnakieMom

Then what is your reasoning for this statement?

"For example, yesterday my sister and I were walking, sister was holding Harlett, and the snake stretched out from her shoulder onto mine. She does this every time she is given to someone other than myself."

My snakes do that almost every time...

---

My snake can clearly see shapes around him but he also uses touch to establish the exact boundaries. He definately can't see that well.

I personally believe that snakes can tell their owner...CH of course...wild maybe not so much, but most pet snakes have been with their owner since they were little. But like many of you say snakes can't because that is what science says...but I think this goes much farther then science...because they dont know everything...

Most of us have a connection to the snake and maybe the snake feels the same connection (just like the thread starter stated my snake always comes back to me...regardless even if he is put on the floor by a friend...always makes it to wrap around my feet from the other side of the room for safety and then ventures off...or when in a friends hand...just crawls off him and back to me)...might be hard to prove...but it is in the same boat as believing if their is a god...or if we are alone in the universe...

I personally have grown to disbelieve parts of science..because scientist are human too...and are not perfect.

That is my two cents...but I believe that snakes can differentiate and if they "can't" then my snake sure is one hell of an exception.

amen! :bow: :snake2:

Being terrestrial and spending most of their time in the dark i would say like most animals of the same habitat poor eye site is definite. Snakes have far less retinal cones and rods than people meaning less to no colour detection and visual acuity depending on species. Infrared vision developed in the trigeminal nerve would also vary by species. I've been told vipers have the best infrared vision over any other but I believe most if not all snake have some form a infrared vision. I dont see why Ball pythons wouldnt be able recognize features in their environment including their keepers by using limited vision, infrared and smell. Surely we cant all smell and look the same in shades of gray and infrared. Maybe even touch?

I was under the impression they had a keen sense of smell/taste. If so, this would be all they needed since everybody has a unique stank on 'em :O

I believe we'll never know exactly how snakes "work" and I do believe they use the combination of their senses in making determinations about the world around them. No living creature depends on one of their senses, it's always a subtle combination of information from various sources that makes up their reaction to things.

Do I believe that snakes "prefer" one person over another. To some extent yes as much as that word indicates a choice made by the snake. Does that choice mean they "like" that person best? Probably not. For me when it comes to Saoirse for instance I think it's just an instinctive action driven by a simple but very instinctive and strong need to survive. Mike = survival for that snake so it makes sense she's most relaxed with Michael. As I mentioned previously though that has slowly extended to other human beings over a long period of time.

I do strongly believe though that snakes can pick up things from those that handle them. Put a relaxed snake in experienced hands and things tend to go well, put that same snake in the hands of a nervous, excited person whose a bit afraid of snakes and may see a different reaction even if it's just a tensing up of the snake. I'm not sure what the mechanics are of this, but it has always made perfect sense to me that a predator can pick up a wide range of information from us using a wonderful variety of it's sensory organs. Snakes don't have large brains but they do have extremely well made and very specific ones designed to help them survive and thrive.

Personally I think they are perfectly designed by nature, I appreciate whatever that means to be me and our snakes and leave it at that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jglass38

I'm not sure either theory has much merit. Ball Pythons have poor eyesight. They rely on their sense of smell (through their tongues) and their heat pits to track prey. They can tell you aren't a prey item because you don't smell like a rat. However, I don't believe that they can tell your smell from another person's smell. Their brains just aren't advanced enough in that way.

---

I know that my RTB can smell a rat (no pun intended) the minute I go into the room with a rat its in predator mode before it sees the rat and before the rat is anywhere near its cage.
I know this because it strikes out at my movement before I have even put the rat down to open its cage and feed it.

I don’t know about snakes being about to tell by the difference between one humans and another though. That would be a cool scientific experiment to find out though.

Here are my thoughts on this. :) Anyone who thinks "oh, my snake loves me and is attached to only me" is just flattering themselves. It is not like a horse or a dog, which can form complex and subtle bonds with humans based on learned behavior of a mind that fully responds to rewards and punishments. Snakes can't be taught to use their master's confidence in them to jump a rail or run an agility course like my examples, horses or dogs, can. They are in a completely different class of animal; one that reacts to stimuli based on instinct; thinking of you as either a meal, a part of the landscape, or a threat.
So in closing, to me, I highly doubt that a snake can form a friendly bond with a human.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mricyfire

I personally believe that snakes can tell their owner...CH of course...wild maybe not so much, but most pet snakes have been with their owner since they were little. But like many of you say snakes can't because that is what science says...but I think this goes much farther then science...because they dont know everything...

Most of us have a connection to the snake and maybe the snake feels the same connection (just like the thread starter stated my snake always comes back to me...regardless even if he is put on the floor by a friend...always makes it to wrap around my feet from the other side of the room for safety and then ventures off...or when in a friends hand...just crawls off him and back to me)...might be hard to prove...but it is in the same boat as believing if their is a god...or if we are alone in the universe...

I personally have grown to disbelieve parts of science..because scientist are human too...and are not perfect.

That is my two cents...but I believe that snakes can differentiate and if they "can't" then my snake sure is one hell of an exception.

---

Equating the argument concerning whether or not a snake recognizes its owner with the argument concerning whether or not there is a god or we are alone in the universe is absolutely rediculous. The only similar "boat" that these two things have is that one side of the argument is trying to prove something for which they have zero empiricle evidence for.

In any event, based on my experience with keeping snakes, I do believe that snakes can become accustomed to human interaction. However, based on a lot of the posts I've seen recently, there a lot of keepers on here that seem to connect to their snakes on a deeper level than others - I believe that deep connection that humans experience tend to make those keepers read too deeply into certain behaviors and come to conclusions about these behaviors that aren't necessarily true.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by elevatethis

Equating the argument concerning whether or not a snake recognizes its owner with the argument concerning whether or not there is a god or we are alone in the universe is absolutely rediculous. The only similar "boat" that these two things have is that one side of the argument is trying to prove something for which they have zero empiricle evidence for.

In any event, based on my experience with keeping snakes, I do believe that snakes can become accustomed to human interaction. However, based on a lot of the posts I've seen recently, there a lot of keepers on here that seem to connect to their snakes on a deeper level than others - I believe that deep connection that humans experience tend to make those keepers read too deeply into certain behaviors and come to conclusions about these behaviors that aren't necessarily true.

---

Couldn't agree more!

I do like the "heat signature" idea though, in regards to snakes differentiating people.. it is the most scientific explanation I have seen thus far. Not like "Oh, Fluffy lubs me and hates Joe!"

I feel that in order to have a bond exist for both parties there needs to be some form of recognition/rationalization capabilities for both parties involved. I just don't feel snakes have this ability, if I was going to argue this point I would bring to light the fact that snakes are imprint feeders; so some sort of memory is present. They recognize the scent of a rat over a mouse(vice versa) and this triggers a feeding response which is instinctual. I apply this same logic when it comes to snakes showing "preference" for one person over the other. While there is no doubt in my mind that this is true, I would compare it more to a imprint of saftey than the snake showing "preference" for the individual.

For example,

My snake shows tendencies of being more relaxed when handled by myself over others. Does he "like" me...I don't think so because when I put him next to his open tub he darts right for the closest hide, naturally because it smells like him.

Bringing all my ranting down to one thing....we fear what is unknown and unfamiliar to us, and find shelter in what is common.

I don't believe that they are something entirely different which is why I would use the term "like", for example. Now, do I think "like" for a snake is the same thing as "like" for a human? No. But, I also believe that all creatures share common underpinnings. So, while they may be radically different creatures, these shared patterns are what allow us to understand their behaviors in a meaningful way.

Take physical topology, for instance. How many animals on this planet have the same fundament anatomical pattern? When you consider the astounding variety of animals on this planet against the relatively small number of reasonably unique physiologies, you a practically forced to accept that there is a common bond. So, why accept this obvious physical pattern but then reject the idea of a mental one? It seems most likely that all creatures have the same mental patterns and that its more the "how much" part that varies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bearhart

When you consider the astounding variety of animals on this planet against the relatively small number of reasonably unique physiologies, you a practically forced to accept that there is a common bond.

---

Like the food chain? Sure. I think that's probably the closest thing I have in common with my snakes. I go to work, watch television, have hobbies, form meaningful relationships with people. My snake eats frozen mice, strikes at me if I reach in his tub too fast, and if given the opportunity, will breed to procreate his species. Just because he's different, and not human , does not make him any less or worse of a species. But why not just respect those differences for what they are.

I think they can simply tell we don't smell like food. I don't think the heat thing has much to do with it. Put your hand ( your heat sig ) w/ rat smell in the tub along w/ a rat and I would bet the snake would hit your hand first simply on the basis of the higher heat output. So if they knew heat sigs they would know yours and not strike. With bp's I think it's a smell thing.

As for them knowing us as opposed to others I think it falls back on who is relaxed and not tense.

My Ozzy could care less who holds him same w/ my albino Edgar
Now my lemon Corona he will hiss like crazy when others try to hold him but those others have been folks who weren't 100% at ease in holding him.
If someone who was at ease tried to hold him I am sure he would be chill.
They may have a slight sense to them, who knows. I know most of the mammal world reacts to a persons fear. Don't know how true that would be with repitles.

That old brain is pretty small so not much room to process a whole heck of a lot.
I think we as owners would like to think they know us and like us :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by darkangel

Like the food chain? Sure. I think that's probably the closest thing I have in common with my snakes. I go to work, watch television, have hobbies, form meaningful relationships with people. My snake eats frozen mice, strikes at me if I reach in his tub too fast, and if given the opportunity, will breed to procreate his species. Just because he's different, and not human , does not make him any less or worse of a species. But why not just respect those differences for what they are.

---

Well almost all animals have two lungs, two eyes, four limbs, a brain and spinal cord, etc. That's what I'm talking about. Despite the radical variety of creatures on this planet there isn't that much variation in physical topology.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bearhart

Well almost all animals have two lungs, two eyes, four limbs, a brain and spinal cord, etc. That's what I'm talking about. Despite the radical variety of creatures on this planet there isn't that much variation in physical topology.

---

Not trying to be a smartass, but some snakes only have one lung. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jotay

My Ozzy could care less who holds him same w/ my albino Edgar
Now my lemon Corona he will hiss like crazy when others try to hold him but those others have been folks who weren't 100% at ease in holding him.
If someone who was at ease tried to hold him I am sure he would be chill.
They may have a slight sense to them, who knows. I know most of the mammal world reacts to a persons fear. Don't know how true that would be with repitles.

That old brain is pretty small so not much room to process a whole heck of a lot.
I think we as owners would like to think they know us and like us :)

---

Yea, I don't disagree that pet owners are going to tend to do that.

I've seen cats show some form of every emotion, complex personalities, and reasoning behavior. Conventional wisdom says animals are all dumb and only people can reason and are "sentient". I strongly doubt that. I think we're loads smarter than they are but that's all there is to it. And, I agree that cats are far smarter than snakes. But there's a lesson there for me that says "Don't underestimate any animal. If you open your mind to them you just might find there's more there than you realized." But then again, lots of people thing I'm a bit weird :rolleye2:

Just my :2cent:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sausage

Not trying to be a smartass, but some snakes only have one lung. ;)

---

I knew that was coming :). There are differences but they are mostly variations of the same base pattern.

The last snake anatomy chart I looked at listed left and right lungs where one was dominant and did all the work and the other was tiny with some minor function.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bearhart

I knew that was coming :). There are differences but they are mostly variations of the same base pattern.

The last snake anatomy chart I looked at listed left and right lungs where one was dominant and did all the work and the other was tiny with some minor function.

---

I think you're trying to reach a little far in the comparison of physical anatomy and its relation to cognitive thinking abilities. Just because we share physical similarities does not make us cognitively equivalent. Just don't see how the two are relevent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bearhart

Yea, I don't disagree that pet owners are going to tend to do that.

I've seen cats show some form of every emotion, complex personalities, and reasoning behavior. Conventional wisdom says animals are all dumb and only people can reason and are "sentient". I strongly doubt that. I think we're loads smarter than they are but that's all there is to it. And, I agree that cats are far smarter than snakes. But there's a lesson there for me that says "Don't underestimate any animal. If you open your mind to them you just might find there's more there than you realized." But then again, lots of people thing I'm a bit weird :rolleye2:

Just my :2cent:

---

Cats are mammals so I don't see how that's relevant. I relate to mammals on a much different level than I do snakes, and I would agree with that -- I have experienced a "connection" to dogs and horses.

You keep coming to this 'people think animals are dumb' argument, but I honestly don't understand how you've extracted that from the comments people have made. I think humans are dumb if we think that the way our central nervous systems and psychologies work are the best system in the animal kingdom. Many species have come before us and may will outlive us.

And I don't think you're weird. I think you're a critical thinker, which is a good thing. But I also think it's ok to take some information for what it is and not try to pull more and more meaning from it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by darkangel

Cats are mammals so I don't see how that's relevant. I relate to mammals on a much different level than I do snakes, and I would agree with that -- I have experienced a "connection" to dogs and horses.

You keep coming to this 'people think animals are dumb' argument, but I honestly don't understand how you've extracted that from the comments people have made. I think humans are dumb if we think that the way our central nervous systems and psychologies work are the best system in the animal kingdom. Many species have come before us and may will outlive us.

And I don't think you're weird. I think you're a critical thinker, which is a good thing. But I also think it's ok to take some information for what it is and not try to pull more and more meaning from it.

---

Great post! They were talking about the same thing recently on the Ramone and Frunkis morning show (local talk radio). A great topic for sure...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jglass38

Great post! They were talking about the same thing recently on the Ramone and Frunkis morning show (local talk radio). A great topic for sure...

---

I must have missed that. Was it on Rock Scream Tuesday? :P :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by darkangel

I must have missed that. Was it on Rock Scream Tuesday? :P :D

---

Nope, Cat noise Wednesday...Meow!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by darkangel

Cats are mammals so I don't see how that's relevant. I relate to mammals on a much different level than I do snakes, and I would agree with that -- I have experienced a "connection" to dogs and horses.

You keep coming to this 'people think animals are dumb' argument, but I honestly don't understand how you've extracted that from the comments people have made. I think humans are dumb if we think that the way our central nervous systems and psychologies work are the best system in the animal kingdom. Many species have come before us and may will outlive us.

And I don't think you're weird. I think you're a critical thinker, which is a good thing. But I also think it's ok to take some information for what it is and not try to pull more and more meaning from it.

---

I've been too busy to post much lately so who knows if anyone will read this. But, since its pretty much my favorite snakey subject, I can't resist....

I said that "conventional" wisdom (some of which is religiously based) tells us that people are special and that animals are ..well... just animals. I'm not referring to anybody here. I'm referring to the fact that the last several decades have provided alot of scientific evidence to show that animals are indeed capable of complex behaviors previously thought to be solely the domain of humanity.

I'll summarize my argument:

1) Between two species that are very different, there are similar behaviors. Humans are vastly superior to cats yet cats can demonstrate complex behaviors that are very similar to human behaviors. I don't think anybody with alot of cat experience could be sold on the "anthropomorphism" argument. When cat looks likes it is embarrased and angry after being laughed at for botching a jump, it is really what it looks like:embarrassed and angry. It may not be exactly like human embarrasment but its still embarrassment. Its not your imagination.

2) Vast numbers of species on this planet use the same base anatomy. Cats have four legs - but those two front legs are smaller so they are kind of like arms arent they? They have two eyes, two ears, lungs, kidneys, a heart, stomach, small intestine, large intenstine, and so on. A cat's leg is 8 inches long, weighs a few ounces. A humans leg is a few feet long and weighs 10's of pounds. Plus, they have different relative bone lengths and overall shape. Nevertheless, they have the same number of major joints and digits. For example, a cat has four claws and a weird dew-claw on the side and a human has four fingers and a thumb on the side - kind of the same thing isn't it? Furthermore, both types of legs are used for locomotion, defense, etc.

3) If animals share this underlying pattern where all of their anatomies are derivations of a common shared pattern then it follows that animal's brains are also related both in their function and in their operation. I'll return to the comparison of cat and human legs: By some measurements (length, weight, strength) these features are radically different yet they share the same basic form and function. That's why they are both called "legs". Also, humans have brains and cats have brains and everybody readily agrees that they both have the same basic purpose. So, why do we suddenly assume that what goes on inside of those brains is completely different and can't be compared? It seems much more likely that, like the legs, the pattern is the same and its only the scale that changes. IMO, you can imagine what its like to be an animal like this: imagine how dumb you were on the morning of your worst-ever hangover and then imagine having 1/10 that thinking ability. Its kind of a crude way to imagine it but my point is that animals don't have totally different thinking patterns, they just have much simpler versions of the same patterns that we do.
4) The argument holds just as well for cats as it does for snakes. Snakes are simply less sophisticated.

Cats get embarassed when they botch an attempt at a jump? Where do you get your facts from?

i don't know if cats get embarassed. but my dog...she'll mess up on a jump, hit her shoulder, and she seems to have this 'embarassed' look to her. maybe i'm just imagining it but she just has this look to her.

The cat thing is kinda true...when my cat misses...he looks at who is near by and then runs in the other direction. Dont really get a chance to notice facial expressions...but it is a fluffy cat soo...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bearhart

I've been too busy to post much lately so who knows if anyone will read this. But, since its pretty much my favorite snakey subject, I can't resist....

I said that "conventional" wisdom (some of which is religiously based) tells us that people are special and that animals are ..well... just animals. I'm not referring to anybody here. I'm referring to the fact that the last several decades have provided alot of scientific evidence to show that animals are indeed capable of complex behaviors previously thought to be solely the domain of humanity.

I'll summarize my argument:

1) Between two species that are very different, there are similar behaviors. Humans are vastly superior to cats yet cats can demonstrate complex behaviors that are very similar to human behaviors. I don't think anybody with alot of cat experience could be sold on the "anthropomorphism" argument. When cat looks likes it is embarrased and angry after being laughed at for botching a jump, it is really what it looks like:embarrassed and angry. It may not be exactly like human embarrasment but its still embarrassment. Its not your imagination.

2) Vast numbers of species on this planet use the same base anatomy. Cats have four legs - but those two front legs are smaller so they are kind of like arms arent they? They have two eyes, two ears, lungs, kidneys, a heart, stomach, small intestine, large intenstine, and so on. A cat's leg is 8 inches long, weighs a few ounces. A humans leg is a few feet long and weighs 10's of pounds. Plus, they have different relative bone lengths and overall shape. Nevertheless, they have the same number of major joints and digits. For example, a cat has four claws and a weird dew-claw on the side and a human has four fingers and a thumb on the side - kind of the same thing isn't it? Furthermore, both types of legs are used for locomotion, defense, etc.

3) If animals share this underlying pattern where all of their anatomies are derivations of a common shared pattern then it follows that animal's brains are also related both in their function and in their operation. I'll return to the comparison of cat and human legs: By some measurements (length, weight, strength) these features are radically different yet they share the same basic form and function. That's why they are both called "legs". Also, humans have brains and cats have brains and everybody readily agrees that they both have the same basic purpose. So, why do we suddenly assume that what goes on inside of those brains is completely different and can't be compared? It seems much more likely that, like the legs, the pattern is the same and its only the scale that changes. IMO, you can imagine what its like to be an animal like this: imagine how dumb you were on the morning of your worst-ever hangover and then imagine having 1/10 that thinking ability. Its kind of a crude way to imagine it but my point is that animals don't have totally different thinking patterns, they just have much simpler versions of the same patterns that we do.
4) The argument holds just as well for cats as it does for snakes. Snakes are simply less sophisticated.

---

I'm sorry bear... but that is really just not a well-put together argument... completely based in what you want to believe in, speculation, and not in science or truth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jglass38

Cats get embarassed when they botch an attempt at a jump? Where do you get your facts from?

---

I've seen it dozens of times. Once in a while, they'll do something something like jump onto the back of the couch, screw it up and make a very un-catlike wipeout. This typically draws a chuckle from those in the room. The response from the cat is to go off into the corner, turn its back, and sit there with this p-o'ed look.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by darkangel

I'm sorry bear... but that is really just not a well-put together argument... completely based in what you want to believe in, speculation, and not in science or truth.

---

Its certainly not ready for publishing but I don't think its flaky. We have kidneys and cats have kidneys. Not only do they both do the same job but they both do it in the same way. So it would suggest that the internal workings of the brains are also *similar*. By similar I mean they have the same types of functions. What I think differs are how powerful (relatively and absolutely) those cognitive powers are.

I don't know that I want to believe it, it just seems obvious to me. I've been pondering this subject long before I got snakes so its not because I want my BP to love me. Most scientific discoveries are simply educated guesses that are later proven. This is simply my guess and nothing more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bearhart

The response from the cat is to go off into the corner, turn its back, and sit there with this p-o'ed look.

---

Hmmm, my cats must be embarassed all the time then. They always turn their back on me and sit in a corner or looking at the wall - I just assumed they were being a cat. The things you learn! :rolleyes:

Yea, both of my snakes act jumpier when being held by anyone else.

Your argument has no boundaries. Centipedes have legs, and humans have legs. Humans can feel depressed so centipedes must also be able to feel depressed. It doesn't add up. Do some reading.

I did a little web searching and found that this subject was a pretty loaded one since it tended to fan the flames of the whole evolution vs. genesis argument. Peronsally, I think my theory makes good sense either way.

The vast majority of stuff was concentrated on studying how the human brain evolved to be so much more advanced. This was interesting considering the centipede example so I thought I'd pass it on:
http://www.livescience.com/health/07...orm_brain.html Most of the findings seem to suggest that the human brain is special in that it is very evolved compared to other animals. This, of course, implicitly says that the human brain is also "made of the same stuff" (speaking loosely).

Anyway, its just my personal little theory on the subject. If there's one thing I believe above all others its that we don't know the half of it yet! So who knows! I just like talking about it - its not an argument. There's a very good chance I'm totally wrong and I know it.

your theory... HA

definition of theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses"; "true in fact and theory"


and how does your rubbish fit into a well substantiated anything? It's just all completely anthropomorphism and your prejudices being pushed on everyone. Sure people would like to think their snake loves them, but it's physically impossible.

And by the way, I love how you pick and choose things as you see fit so that you think that your ideas make sense. All the article that you printed proves is that evolution exists, which was proved a long time ago (at least in my eyes, if anyone feels the need to tell me otherwise and the world was created in 7 days, I don't care, go look at your ball pythons and realize selection happens).

Anyway, moving on to your next crazy set of statements, I can't wait to hear it. But for goodness sakes don't call it a theory, because it's not.

I'm not pushing my ideas onto anybody. I'm just giving my opinion on the subject in this thread. I certainly never flamed you or anything you said so I don't know what your basing your objections on.

You accuse me of cherry-picking but that's what people do in a debate. I suppose you know all about that considering your definition of theory. Here's two sources (note that both of them include something along the lines of "guess" or "conjecture"):

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/theory
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theory

You can't rely on the old high-school pocket dictionary forever you know (and yes that includes your middle school one too).