Health Defects in Albinos?

I was told by a Zoology graduate from the University of British Columbia that albinism was nature's way of eliminating bad genes.

He said when two carriers of weak genes reproduce, the offsprings has a higher chance of having albinism. In the wild, an animal's appearance in terms of color and shade is a major defense system. Albinos, due to their unusual appearance, are more likely to be exposed, and therefore more variable to danger. Also, he said albinism causes direct health defects, such that animals including humans who have albinism, have poorer eyesight, more fragile skin, and a weak bone structure due to their inability to receive the proper nutrients from the sun. In the end he told me this was according to Darwinism, and that it was cruel to keep an albino snake.

I, as a major fan of Ball Python morphs, had a extremely hard time listening to this. I kept thinking about it, and debated whether or not to post this, as I know this is very undesirable thing to hear. It seems that his theory has some logic to it. I do not have any direct personal experience with Ball Python morphs but was hoping those who do could share some of their experience. Do albinos, or other morphs, act different in terms of health or behavior in comparison with normals? If so, are the health defects so significant that it is cruel to keep one? I really hope that his theory is not true, because I really want to own a piedbald some day.

While I do personally think that a bright white and yellow snake would be easier to find in the wild versus a normal, I doubt it's nature's way of picking out a snake with weak genes o.O In my opinion, it's just another morph, just another set of genes, just like blond hair and blue eyes are recessive traits, which is why most people have dark hair and dark eyes, because these traits are dominant. There are however those BP morphs that do have defects associated with their specific genetics, like the Spider wobble, or the Caramel kinks, etc. In my opinion these are just defects that come along with the different genetics, and albinism isn't some way to get rid of these animals with weak genes. It's like, midgets (no offense intended to anyone of course), or being white, or black, or asian. It's genetics. If you mix an albino with a spider and get an albino spider, you're not ensuring this animals death and being cruel because all spiders have some sort of wobble, and albinos 'have weak genes.' Just like me being phillipino-german-polish doesn't make me a broken toothed nazi jew!

He's entitled to his opinion, but I'd hazard that the many lines of albino and the many generations of albino, all thriving in the care of keepers all over, mean that Albino BPs are not defective(except in coloration, which is a minor mutation).
I consider it more like a birth mark on someone. BPs do not need to bask, and therefor the albino doesn't affect them. I never noticed my albino keeping away from light, or hiding overmuch. Never heard of any issues related to albinos.
I think he's full of bunk, and just thinks anything odd is a "mutant" and therefor "defective". Let him have his opinion, he's entitled to it, however wrong it might be.

Your friend is over simplifying, grossly.

Yes, albinos are less likely to live long lives in the wild cause nothing stands out quite so much as a stark white and yellow snake. But, obviously some do survive cause the gene is in the populations and wild albinos are caught... Albinos do not necessarily have "bad" eyesight but because of the lack of melanin their eyes (and skin) are more sensitive to light, especially UV, and so they are more easily damaged by the light (i.e blinded). In some animals, exposure to sunlight is necessary for proper VitD3/calcium metabolism but nocturnal animals (like balls) tend to have evolved ways of dealing with that. Ditto for the skin, some processes that "toughen" skin are catalized by exposure to sunligh. But we are talking about snakes so that whole scale thing comes in to play so...

If you want to look at the albino gene as "bad" because of those aspects I guess you can. I do not think of it as such, it is just less "fit" under wild conditions. And it is only the albino gene that is being selected against in the wild, not some amalgam of bad genes inducing the albino gene to occur so that the rest get culled. None of that really matters though when you are talking about a captive kept snake (or any animal for that matter.) In the wild, yeah, an albino animal is likely to be selected against, but in captivity there is no selective pressure againt the albino gene and an albino animal is no more or less likely to be carrying "bad" genes than any other morph.

And, if you really want to argue with your friend, then tell him that, according to his logic of animals with bad genes ought not be kept as pets, he ought to never own a dog because every breed has some type of genetic based disease/diseases that tend to be specific to the breed because of the inbreeding done to select for the traits of the breed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by asplundii

And, if you really want to argue with your friend, then tell him that, according to his logic of animals with bad genes ought not be kept as pets, he ought to never own a dog because every breed has some type of genetic based disease/diseases that tend to be specific to the breed because of the inbreeding done to select for the traits of the breed.

---

Your right, I need to go shoot my dogs and put all my morphs in the freezer and join PETA today.......;)

zhang, Your friend needs some hands on experience with animals and not a left slanted "schooling" on natural evolution and genetics. An albino ball is the exact same animal, with the same needs and care requirements of a normal ball python just with a different paint job. While most are weeded out by predation in the wild, don't be fooled into thinking that adult morphs don't exist in the African bush. Some mutations hinder while others assist in daily lives.

I'm off now, be back later.

ps, go out and buy that pied, its good for the economy:D

In a pet, certain traits that would be undesirable in the wild, are actually sought after.
Nature fine tunes things for survival of the fittest. As soon as man starts playing around with the gene pool,to make something "cute" or "interesting" you can bet it's not going to be as good as the original.
Still a pet is exactly that, a pet. Protected and cared for by their loving owners.

My albinos seem happy... they eat,breed, ect. The fact that they would not do well in the wild means little to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neilgolli

zhang, Your friend needs some hands on experience with animals and not a left slanted "schooling" on natural evolution and genetics.

---

Neil,

I mean no disrespect but there is nothing wrong with the teaching of natural selection and genetics and there is nothing that is particularly "left" about either. I believe in this case the problem is that the friend probably only has the very rough base of evolution as taught in a couple days during a basic biology course. One of those situations where you know just enough to make yourself think you know all you need to know. If you have a deeper understanding of genetics (like, say, as a profession) and have taken 7 or 8 college and graduate level courses on the finer points of evolution then you come to a greater understanding of the process that allows you understand why statements of "albinos are nature's way of culling bad genes... Darwinism says so." are not at all accurate.

Cheers

Albinos exist in plenty of species that live successfully in the wild. Native Americans in the past often revered white buffalo, bear and deer that lived to ripe old ages. Albino examples of animals that are legally hunted are generally protected by law. These laws are passed at the urging of other wildlife biology experts that don't agree with the man that you are quoting. An albino is certainly hyper sensitive to sunlight and if a reptile that needed to bask in direct sunlight was born as an albino it would certainly have a genetic problem and would not survive. But many animals in the wild are nocturnal and such animals have no problem surviving. I'm just an old uneducated guy and even I can see that to say that because a gene is recessive it is evidence of passing on an undesirable trait is foolish idea.

I agree, I don't think the friend is "stupid" or anything, he's just flat-out wrong. I hope he extrapolated this idea from lecture material, and that this was not something a teacher told him.

I don't think you can really call a gene "weak." Yes, some traits make organisms less likely to thrive, but the genes in and of themselves are not weak, and certainly the animal's genome is not going to change and make it albino just because it has some deleterious alleles at important genes that govern its success at survival and reproduction. If this were the case, the cats at our shelters with neurological disorders would be albino, as would humans with DS, or even severe autism.

Natural selection cannot act on the genes themselves, only on the phenotype of the individual animal once it's out in the world. Your friend is suggesting that somehow animals are being selected against and "targeted" for consumption by predators before they are even born, and this is simply just not so.


v

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vacado

Natural selection cannot act on the genes themselves, only on the phenotype of the individual animal once it's out in the world. Your friend is suggesting that somehow animals are being selected against and "targeted" for consumption by predators before they are even born, and this is simply just not so.


v

---

It could also select based on the behavioral / physical results of that gene too. Take Chrone's disease, poor eyesight, etc... for example.

JonV

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zhang317

I was told by a Zoology graduate from the University of British Columbia that albinism was nature's way of eliminating bad genes.

---

Note to self, don't attend University of British Columbia. Lol.

Was this someone who graduated with a bachelor's degree?

JonV

If the jungle was all white and yellow I wonder if Albinos would thrive while the other genes got picked off by preditors?

That is the main weakness of Albino ball pythons. As far as other morphs, I'm sure given the correct environment they would thrive better than their normal siblings.

For the sake of captive animals that will not be released into the wild a blind man in the dark would never be able to tell the difference between the albino and the normal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neilgolli

Your right, I need to go shoot my dogs and put all my morphs in the freezer and join PETA today.......;)

---

No no no Neil just send them all to me (including your doggies even the one that looks like mine) and than you can do whatever you want after that. (See I am a problem solver ;))

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neilgolli

Your right, I need to go shoot my dogs and put all my morphs in the freezer and join PETA today.......;)

zhang, Your friend needs some hands on experience with animals and not a left slanted "schooling" on natural evolution and genetics. An albino ball is the exact same animal, with the same needs and care requirements of a normal ball python just with a different paint job. While most are weeded out by predation in the wild, don't be fooled into thinking that adult morphs don't exist in the African bush. Some mutations hinder while others assist in daily lives.

I'm off now, be back later.

ps, go out and buy that pied, its good for the economy:D

---

i knew there was something i liked about you neil i just couldnt ever figure out what till now. :salute:

Thanks for all the replies everyone!

First of all, he isn't really my friend, not sure where you guys got this idea, lol. Actually, he runs the Rainforest Reptile Refuge Society in Surrey, ( a large suburb of Vancouver) where unwanted and abused pets are taken in. I think the society is very good, because there are no government sponsored systems that help reptiles. The SPCA in Canada lacks staff who specialize in reptiles, and most of the time a reptile is taken in, it is put down. My mom took me there when I was little, because she knows I'm really into reptiles. It is actually an amazing place with tons of species and hundreds of animals.

I have learned a lot form the comments. I guess that it is true albinos, and other morphs, spider, carmel, etc. have certain defects and do not measure up to the normal, which may cause them to have a shorter lifespan in the wild. But here in captivity, since we provide them with everything they need, it is more of less that same as keeping a normal. Thanks again!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zhang317

I have learned a lot form the comments. I guess that it is true albinos, and other morphs, spider, carmel, etc. have certain defects and do not measure up to the normal, which may cause them to have a shorter lifespan in the wild.

---

Ha, considering what it means to "measure up to normal" in human terms, I'd be proud to have some genetic defects (anyone seen Idiocracy?).

Keep in mind, defect is a relative term. Maybe normals were a "defect" from albinos, but ended up being a better fit for nature (ie they were selected for), and so now we regard them as the defect.

I realize this is probably not true with albinos, but puts in perspective what we consider to be the "right" genes.

JonV

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nevohraalnavnoj

Ha, considering what it means to "measure up to normal" in human terms, I'd be proud to have some genetic defects (anyone seen Idiocracy?).

Keep in mind, defect is a relative term. Maybe normals were a "defect" from albinos, but ended up being a better fit for nature (ie they were selected for), and so now we regard them as the defect.

I realize this is probably not true with albinos, but puts in perspective what we consider to be the "right" genes.

JonV

---

I meant in terms of normals having less sensitive skin, heads don't wobble, etc. And yes it is relative, in terms of exotic beauty, a normal cannot measure up to some of the morphs out there today.

I'm not sure exactly what the scientific definition of "albino" is. I thought it was a lack of all pigmentation. So what we call albino BPs aren't truly albino, since they still have the yellow pigment. I might be wrong, and I don't think it affects the truth, or lack thereof, of the original statement that this post is about.

Just because something is selected for, or against, in nature does not make it better or worse. It does not make the genes stronger or weaker. There are plenty of examples in biological history of something that used to be a dominant species, or a dominant trait in a species, becoming no longer viable due to changing conditions. One that is in a lot of biology textbooks is about a certain species of moth. Sorry I cannot recall the name of the species, and I might have the details slightly wrong, but the point I am trying to make is still valid. The moth comes in 2 different colors, one is many shades lighter than the other. The light colored moths used to be much more common, and the dark ones were rare and did not survive well because the different color stood out in the environment, making them vulnerable to predators. Then, with the event of the industrial age, the environment changed. Due to pollution, the colors in the environment became darker on average. Gradually, the dark colored moths became more common than the light ones, because now the light ones are the ones that stand out and are vulnerable. There is nothing wrong with either color of moth, no defects or anything, but historically, using the reasoning of the zoology graduate, the dark moths were weak. Now, using the same reasoning, the light moths are weak. Obviously this is flawed reasoning.

The ironic thing, to me, is that this story about the moths is in biology textbooks to prove that Darwin's theories are correct. Yet here I am using it to prove that this person's statements, supposedly based on Darwin's theories, are false. I think he should probably go back and study a little bit more, because I think he missed the point.

Anyway, bottom line, as many have already pointed out, is that there is nothing wrong with albino BPs, and certainly nothing wrong with keeping them in captivity. When some bizarre geologic upheaval in Africa turns all the dirt, sand, and rocks to shades of yellow & white, then the albinos will be the dominant ones in the wild.

Hey guys im sorry to say but, the guy is 100% right, in nature a color mutation will most definitaly result in the death of that animale, like to describe it as this. here is how i learned it from my professor.( but it could go both ways) for instance we will take moths for example,, in a forest where these moths live, the trees are covered in mossy grey light brown bark. and these moths live in and around these trees. now lets say a bluejay is hungry but the only defence these moths have is their color which is similar to the color of the trees so it basically is hidden, but in among the moths there are a few 1000 that are the same species of moth only white colored mutation, these moths will be eatin before the normal colored ones because the blue jay could easily see the moth, but as i learned from studying nature the enviorment is always changing, now the trees begin to white out and change color and become more white in color than grey and the moss dies, now the mutation has a better camo than the normal moths and will die before the white. and as for the weeker skin and blindness, there are different effects albinoism has on different animales and sometime individual animals, and or species. but its perfectly normal to have mutations in that is evolutions way off testing new colors and and seeing what new species may arise or what new colors would work better for survival. What i wrote here is not BS and is true, i am a bio major and am pretty smart...lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MattZ BallZ

Hey guys im sorry to say but, the guy is 100% right, in nature a color mutation will most definitaly result in the death of that animale, like to describe it as this. here is how i learned it from my professor.( but it could go both ways) for instance we will take moths for example,, in a forest where these moths live, the trees are covered in mossy grey light brown bark. and these moths live in and around these trees. now lets say a bluejay is hungry but the only defence these moths have is their color which is similar to the color of the trees so it basically is hidden, but in among the moths there are a few 1000 that are the same species of moth only white colored mutation, these moths will be eatin before the normal colored ones because the blue jay could easily see the moth, but as i learned from studying nature the enviorment is always changing, now the trees begin to white out and change color and become more white in color than grey and the moss dies, now the mutation has a better camo than the normal moths and will die before the white. and as for the weeker skin and blindness, there are different effects albinoism has on different animales and sometime individual animals, and or species. but its perfectly normal to have mutations in that is evolutions way off testing new colors and and seeing what new species may arise or what new colors would work better for survival. What i wrote here is not BS and is true, i am a bio major and am pretty smart...lol

---

I think your missing the point a little bit..
The man was saying that the gene was specifically designed to pair with bad genes to kill off those genes in the wild, which is false.
Spiders and Caramels both, in my opinion, would not stand out extremely badly in the wild, yet they both have the worst genetic undesirables of all the morphs.
Albinos, other than having sensitive skin, which does not effect them, have no other known aliment to cause them problems or for any reason to be killed off. It is a simple recessive trait, just like blue eyes, and can be produced easily with successfully thriving animals in captivity.

We understand that color mutations like albinism in the wild will often cause the animal to die because of lack of camouflage. However, that is not what the man was talking about at all, therefore you don't make a whole lot of sense. :/

I am with BlackCrystal here, what the guy said was not 100% right and what Matt wrote is not exactly true.

A colour mutation will not "most definitely result in the death of that animal". Since we have brought the pepper moth into it then let us look at it in the right manner (kc had it pretty close.)

The melanistic phenotype is the mutation in this case. The WT phenotype is a pale, black flecked apperance. In their original habitat of these moths spend their days on lichen covered trees. The mottled/peppered aperance of the WT provides protective camo under the original conditions. The melanistic moths did indeed stick out here but that has nothing to do with the "strength" or "weakness" of the gene, it is how "fit" the animal is to selection. In the original conditions the melanistic moths are not "fit". Then comes the industrial revolution. Carbon soot kills the lichen on the trees and colours the bark black. The selective pressure has now changed, the melanistic mutants are the ones that have protective camo and the WT stick out like a sore thumb. Nothing about the actual genetic make up of either morph has changed it is just that now the mutant is more "fit" to the conditions. And as such, the colour mutation is most definitely resulting in the survival of the animal and not the death of the animal. And an interesting side note (for those that care) with the cut back in coal use and the push for cleaner air the trees are now recovering and the WT colour phase is making a come back.