|
RE: Is Hybridization Ethical ?
|
Reply
|
|
by theemojohnm on September 20, 2011
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
LOL ! Did this kid really just cite a list of publications that INVALIDATE his point, and VALIDATE Doug's ?!
I guess the hope was, that by citing some papers, he would look credible, and nobody would actually read those publications, or he assumed that most of us haven't, already..?
Take Care,
-John Mendrola
|
| |
|
RE: Is Hybridization Ethical ?
|
Reply
|
|
by theemojohnm on September 20, 2011
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Based on the direction the last thread took, and this creation of a new thread, the grammatical incoherence of the original poster, and the laughability in which this this "theory" was concocted, the obvious failure to comprehend the publications that were cited, and yet ANOTHER Hoser citation (who this guy seems to be a fan of), I smell Tommy Blake..
May be too early to tell, but the IP tracer will give me a good idea.
But hey, at least there is some activity here, yet again ! Even if it's pseudo-scientific.
|
| |
|
RE: Is Hybridization Ethical ?
|
Reply
|
|
by CanadianSnakeMan on September 20, 2011
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Our good friend Tommy... back from the dead.
I was going to post a counter-argument until I read the verbal bi**h slap that Doug laid down on this guy. Now I'm just watching and laughing.
You can smell Tommy from a mile away with the copy/paste reposting and bad grammar... unless there's another individual who has the same habits.
|
| |
|
RE: Is Hybridization Ethical ?
|
Reply
|
|
by AquaHerp on September 20, 2011
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I laughed at the whole Aruba Island rattlesnake comment. To say these only occur in captivity? Where did that come from? There is a stable population in the wild. The only real threat now is the introduction of the Boa to the area. Of course...let me guess...that's evolution too?
Incidentally, the unicolor is one of the projects I have been involved in for years. I just got the latest update from the team in April; oddly they failed to mention the whole extinction thing. Now if you want to argue taxonomic placement of this snake (species, subspecies, variation) then we can get into a lively debate.
Currently I can’t speak to any snakes only surviving in captivity. Now, amphibians, fish (primarily Victorian cichlids) a bird or two yes.
Perhaps I’ll pop out and invite Wolfgang to weigh in. I’m betting he too would be thankful to know he’s been wasting his career on an anti-scientific, emotional lie. Then again, I think we all have better things to do.
I do have to admit I am ashamed that I didn’t key in on our resident professional zoologist once I read the word “venomoid”. I am slipping in my old age.
|
| |
|
RE: Is Hybridization Ethical ?
|
Reply
|
|
by AquaHerp on September 20, 2011
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
As the crickets chirp into the stillness....a lone tumbleweed drifts across the screen.
Thank God!
DH
|
| |
|
RE: Is Hybridization Ethical ?
|
Reply
|
|
by CanadianSnakeMan on September 21, 2011
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Not that I know Wolfgang personally, but I would imagine that he has better things to do (as most of us do) than argue with some 16 year old kid in his mom's basement.
|
| |
|
RE: Is Hybridization Ethical ?
|
Reply
|
|
by CanadianSnakeMan on September 21, 2011
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Not that I know Wolfgang personally, but I would imagine that he has better things to do (as most of us do) than argue with some 16 year old kid in his mom's basement.
|
| |
|
RE: Is Hybridization Ethical ?
|
Reply
|
|
by Caduceus on September 27, 2011
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Look guys this really isn't personal, I like talking to you guys, I am just trying to have an objective conversation. First off, when I cited the articles I was responding to AquaHerps claim that, "The VENOM of a snakes is basically worthless bio medically as a whole." and that "Researchers look at them individually as to how they might be applied to a drug. The rest of the venom is not even in the variable" in other words Aqua Herp was arguing that venom is worthless bio medically and that outside of the production of drugs ( and I assumed he meant anti venom) it has no real value. To rebuke this I cited an article that I had read entitled ""THE HYBRIDIZATION OF CORDYCEPS SINENSIS STRAINS AND THE MODIFICATIONS OF THEIR CULTURE PARAMETERS, IN ORDER TO OPTIMIZE THE PRODUCTION OF TARGET MEDICINAL COMPOUNDS." This article showed how snake venom was used to harvest chemical compounds from mushrooms that had biomedical relevance. The text I quoted was from page 161 paragraph 1. I obviously had to read the article in order to quote the text. Here is a link to a PDF copy of it: (http://www.alohamedicinals.com/cordy_IJMM_hybrid_article.pdf). I cited this article and the others to show that 1) snake venom does have biomedical relevance and 2) that it has biomedical relevance outside of the production of anti-venom. I never stated anywhere in my argument that I was citing these articles as proof that hybrid snake venom had biomedical significance, in fact, I didn't even look for such articles because I didn't have to. I rebuked the idea that hybrid snake venom would have no value to science in principal by arguing that since snakes evolved different venoms with biomedical significance, it would be a logical fallacy to insinuate that guiding the process of evolution via artificial selection would not produce new venoms which also might have biomedical significance. Again, this seems like common sense. I do not understand what you are all getting wild up about ? Second of all, aquaherp, I find it amusing that you try to justify your appeal to emotion by an argumentum ad verecundiam. Yes, what a wonderful idea, you tried to justify your appeal to emotion with an appeal to authority as if arguing in the form of one logical fallacy would justify arguing in the form of another logical fallacy. What brilliant expertise.
With regards to Crotalusssp I find your argument almost persuasive. But I have some problems with it. First of all evolution can have several meanings, it could mean change over time, change by design, random mutations acting on natural selection, random mutations acting on artificial selection, chemical evolution, micro evolution, macro evolution, etc. Artificial selection is a text book definition of evolution that is 100% excepted by all scientist. It doesn't matter what traits we artificially select for, that is completely irrelevant. Whether or not it is ethical to breed animals for aesthetics or profit is another can of worms all together and I want to stay on topic. One of your statements that I didn't understand was when you argued that, "Evolution...does not occur at the individual/organism level." How does this make sense ? At some point an animal will mutate and then pass those mutations on to the offspring so it obviously has to occur on the individual level at some point. If the mutation is beneficial that individual will just pass his genes on to the rest of the group. So what is your logic here ? Are you trying to argue for evolution via design ? Are you a creationist ? I do not understand ? And BTW, how does this have any relevance to the argument I made. I was specifically arguing in terms of population genetics so I do not know if you are attacking straw men here or what but I would like you to clarify. Second of all, breeding animals for aesthetic purposes and profit has its pros and cons. I personally think the pros for the animals and for the people who own them far outweigh the cons. However, hypothetically I can see how it may not always be in the animals interest if the animals ever had to renter the wild for some reason. So I was thinking, if you purist started breeding animals for genetic mutations that were in the animals interest you might really have something here. For example, my mamba seems to try to flatten his neck like a cobra often but can't do it as well, and I also noticed my cobras cant open their mouths as wide as some of my pythons can when they eat food. So if you started breeding mambas for hood size and cobras for jaw expansion you may be aiding the animals evolution and acting in their interest as well. In fact, if purist went down this road instead of just trying to hold herpetology back by squealing about things that are common sense I may even concede and join you. Although I am sure that this process would have serious cons as well.
Also, please guys, stop with the ad hominem attacks, arguments from authority, appeals to emotion, etc. Let's keep it professional, if you do not like the ideas I am expressing just try to rebuke them on their own merits stop trying to make it personal we are not children here.
|
| |
|
RE: Is Hybridization Ethical ?
|
Reply
|
|
by AquaHerp on September 27, 2011
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Sigh.....
We have already rebuked them on every level.
I never said a word about venom not being valuable to biomedical purposes. To the contrary, I said just the opposite. Here is how it works. The venom is broken down into its individual parts. A protein is isolated and then THAT PROTEIN is researched for its application to the biomedical experiment. The remainder of the venom is not factored in to the research being conducted. At least not for that test. All of these proteins combined are deadly. Individually, they have the potential for biomedical applications. I can't see how we can explain that any more basic????
The only emotion I am projecting here is frustration that is "evolving" into downright "pissed off".
Let me tell you why, once and only once Tommy.
You first came in claiming that you knew it all, because you held a masters degree in biology. It was obvious in your initial post that this was not the case. Your grasp of even baseline biology is about a solid as jellyfish spunk. Yet you persist in arguing and using terms and words that you also have no real practical understanding. Yet you continue on...as if you have a valid theory, even when it is clear that you do not from a scientific standpoint. Then, you up the ante by insulting others here based on.......nothing! Somehow, you still expect to have a "professional conversation"?
Since you seem to be calling me out over and over again....I'll bite.
Your background, credentials and information are totally absent. Your past claims of holding a degree are untrue. Your logic is scientifically unsound and based on your misinterpretation of what you are reading, yet not understanding on any level. These are the facts as we see them. You have yet to provide anything whatsoever to back these.
I am done arguing with you and affording you any more time out of my day. Here’s why Tommy. Your arguments are based on conservation and venom evolution and biomedical research as it is applied to venom. You seem to have no grasp of this. Period.
Three hours ago, I finished up a two hour tour and discussion with 20 medical students from UNM. Why would a seemingly emotional, unscientific, person such as I lecture the science of venoms to medical students???? Hmmmm...oh wait I know! Here comes the shit that I hate but sometimes it is necessary:
Unlike you, and I can safely say this based upon your postings; I have been doing this on a PROFESSIONAL level for nearly 30 years. Longer then you have been alive.
I serve on, or have served on, numerous conservation programs for species around the globe. Not all are herp oriented. Attwaters Prairie chickens, African Elephants, Black Rhino and more are a part of my list. In these meetings we look at wild population vs. our assurance populations. In order to use best practices science as we look at healthy populations in the wild and boosting these populations we are very concerned with mean kinship values and genetic integrity. I know you don’t believe in this approach, although every single biologist in the world seems to think differently than you.
I launched the conservation program for the state of Indiana as it related to the timber rattlesnake and conducted those studies for seven years. I currently serve as primary investigator for six endangered species programs here in New Mexico. I also currently serve as Curator of Herpetology for the Albuquerque Biological Park/Zoo. I frequently lecture and train other professionals all over the country and beyond.
I also have served as curator for the National Natural Toxins Research Center at Texas A&M- Kingsville. This is the largest and most respected venom research lab in the country and considered one of the top three in the world. Hundreds of scientific papers have been generated from this facility. As the only federally funded venom research lab in the nation, we housed over 500 venomous snakes. These snakes were used for venom procurement as well as other biomedical and scientific research. I still provide input and research items for this facility and recently published on a formerly unknown venom. I am in the midst of another publication in conjunction with the center on the venom profile for the Bitis parviocula. This center is a full-blown research lab with millions of dollars in instrumentation that conducts studies on venom as it pertains directly to biomedical applications. While you are trying to cite and make sense of these publication, the scientists there are breaking apart venoms, cloning proteins and in fact writing the very papers that you keep trying to cite!!!!
So, unlike you who keeps annoying others with your misguided attempts at vomiting other’s work... I have been doing this professionally for decades. I do more in one afternoon that you will most likely do in your entire life. If I sound pretentious and “authoritative” that is because you brought it to this level with your endless blather and inability to shut your mouth long enough to maybe learn something. Please, don’t feel special though. You are among the younger generation of “keyboard ecologists” that has never done a single thing original or of value. Instead you wish to stand on the shoulders of other’s before you that have contributed to the body of science and pretend that you are equal to those individuals. You are not. Instead you are an insult to everything they worked for.
This is all I really have to say to you. I have wasted more than enough time on you. If you really wish to unzip and compare further, please do not bother me unless you are willing to provide your real name, proof of masters degree, occupation (where are you a “zoologist”?) scientific publications and a list of professional references, and we’ll continue on. Otherwise.... go back and read a book or two. Everyone has a right to be ignorant at times. You have gone above and beyond in your abuse of this privilege. Put up or shut up.
|
| |
|
Email Subscription
You are not subscribed to this topic.
Subscribe!
My Subscriptions
Subscriptions Help
Check our help page for help using
, or send questions, comments, or suggestions to the
Manager.
|
