Ever think that my spider may be more adapted to this world then your normal?

[Domepiece]

This is a pretty cool scenario in the human population. I come from a school of thought where people considered humans to have stopped being selected for a long time ago, so forgive me if I came off as not being on board with what you're saying. I don't disagree with you, but I don't have enough specific knowledge on it to really say much else about it. I think you agree with me on the larger point I was trying to draw attention to, which is about dumb luck. What makes the spider gene different from other evolutionary adaptations is that it hasn't 'proven' itself as superior and most likely never will. Based on what we know about why BPs act and are colored the way they are, it seems unlikely to be able to safely speculate that they WOULD have an advantage that would be considered evolutionary in their native habitat .

@Mike - Sorry, I mentioned in my first post that I only care enough to point out that your theory is less than rational and unsupported, to be polite. You're the one carrying the burden of proof and took it on with your opening post.

The last thing I'll throw out there to consider is whether or not we'd even be having this discussion if the color pattern on the spider morph looked like a normal bp color. Would you breed wobbly normals and market them as such? Do you think people would buy them? Come on...

Going to respectfully dip out at this time, as this is going nowhere fast. Domepiece- cool stuff. I'm going to check out more about sickle cell. I'm curious to know how high the percent of sickle carriers can get in the most highly selected community.

Good point. I dont believe the spider gene to be superior by any means. Only that even mutations that are nolonger exhibited can be carried along dormant within the genomes of living creatures and can present themselves later down the evolutionary chain and alot of species exhibit very strange survival tactics that would be considered dysfunctional to humans only because we dont understand the reason for them. I guess my point of speculation is that the spider gene may simply be a throwback to an early existence where it may have been useful for a period of time when there were different environmental, prey, and predatory conditions. I dont know exactly how far back the fossil records go for ball pythons and their ancestors but I'm sure they have been around long enough for many different mutations to occur. There is just so many variables and lack of research on this subject this type of speculation could go on for ever. I do know what you are saying and am inclined to agree with you, I'm just covering the other end.

[Domepiece]

There is one on record...who was keeping records before anyone cared about ball pythons? As recently as the 80's?? That is why holding to that claim is crazy. Sure, there's only one on record, but to say the only one on record IS in fact the only one ever found in centuries of a species existence in an area of the world where a lot of "record keeping" of such things is probably shoddy at best is akin to saying Bigfoot IN FACT lives because he was seen on tape.

It is kind of hard to believe that there was ever only on in existence. Also adding to the shodding record keeping of 3rd world countries and early breeders there are still places in Africa and throughout the world that remain unexplored not to mention the vast rainforests and the thousands of square miles of land, it would be almost impossible to discover all the spiders out there. New species of animals are discovered daily.
This reminds me of sometimes when I go looking through the woods for morels. I'll go to a spot where I found 30-40 lbs the year before and then this time when I go I only find one morel. Doesnt mean they arent out there it only means that I couldnt see them or I just didnt cover enough ground and look in the right spots. This isnt directed at you, just wanted to elaborate on your comments.

[Domepiece]

I think we have to say that the spider mutation did "prove" effective as it was attractive enough for us to take one and breed it out to who knows how many. I think people often think of evolution with humans as observers and not as an active part of the planets ecosystem.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sad but true.

[RobNJ]

So just to be clear on this? Your argument is based on "What If's" and mine is based on actual records.

My argument isn't based on what if's...it's based on rational perspective.

And to address history...not everything we know of history is solid fact. In fact, so much of what we "know" is speculation and drawn conclusions...based on factual tidbits of information that we are actually privy to.

[Domepiece]

My argument isn't based on what if's...it's based on rational perspective.

And to address history...not everything we know of history is solid fact. In fact, so much of what we "know" is speculation and drawn conclusions...based on factual tidbits of information that we are actually privy to.

x2. All questions are first answered by asking "what if".

[Bruce Whitehead]

That is too bad MR Lang... We were all really excited about the education you were about to offer us....

I enjoy thoughtful, intelligent, well-written, rigorous, and knowledgable responses.

I hope he stays.

Bruce

[Mike Cavanaugh]

I am suprised this thread died... I guess most just think I am crazy.

[Domepiece]

I am suprised this thread died... I guess most just think I am crazy.

LOL, lets bring it back! It was just getting interesting

[h00blah]

I'll put in my 2 cents

My spiderhas trouble finding his f/t rodent sometimes.. Sometimes he'll give up because he just can't reach the head. He can kill/eat LIVE rodents just fine though... So I'm not sure what to make of that?

Also, there are animals and insects that will display a similar wobble when luring prey, or to make it appear as if they are more dangerous than they are..

[gardenfiend138]

Another hallmark of evolution is that a trait doesn't necessarily have to be beneficial to be passed on. As long as it is not a detriment to the survival to the animal, it may be favored by natural selection because there are no negative natural pressures to eliminate it. So it may also be that the mutation is not in fact a defect as so many believe, but rather a neutral feature. But still, genes that hinder survival still do get passed on until they are able to be removed from the gene pool. It is a unique hypothesis though, and a great way to look at it in a positive light.