TerraForums Venus Flytrap, Nepenthes, Drosera and more talk
Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Ron Paul 2008 Revolution
- Thread starter zappafan
- Start date
Instead of asking me the same question in different threads, why not try to remember? I got to Cleveland State University, it's not a Christian college and if that is your attempt as an insult you need to try harder. Hypothesis are testable too, what's your point? No one said they aren't testable. Evolution is not a law.
Uhh I got all As in my last 5 bio classes. One of them was Organic Evolution. I ended one class with a 105....Evolution and Classification of Plants. You wouldn't happen to be in bio for nonmajors at Ohio Christian University would you?
You also probably got an A for immaturity 101 as well. To answer your question it was a major requirement and to get a C in that class was considered an achievement.
Notice how Ktulu, a non-bio major understand that theories cannot be proven? What community college did you graduate from?
ktulu did say PROVEN FALSE. So if someone says they can be "proven"..."proven false" falls under the umbrella of such.
Awww....I thought I was the immature one. Let's not get envious here.
And FYI, it was Texas Tech University...doing bio w/ a specialization and pre-med in 3.5 years. Kept a 3.75 for the majority of my college career, then rocked the MCAT. Do we really need to compare credentials here?
I'm not trying to insult you. I respect you for having the tenacity to continue to hold on so tightly to what you believe...but honestly (and I'm saying this in the nicest way possible), some of the things you believe are just plain stupid...
Sorry you feel that way, however it sounds kind of stupid when a Bio major claims evolution as a universal truth.
I never denied that is downright doesn't occur. Sure it occurs, look at viruses like MRSA and other bacteria that are immune to most anti-biotics. However am I product of a one-celled living organism that lived in the ocean billions of years ago that evolved into all the different species that inhabit the Earth today? No and that can never be proven as fact. If you want to accept that through faith as a fact, by all means do so but it can never be a universal truth. Just like I can't universally prove God's existence.
NeciFiX
Kung Fu Fighting!
I just finished reading more than 200 posts, and I don't know where to begin in my response. While this thread may have started off with a Ron Paul discussion, we can safely say this is no longer the issue. So many different posts grabbed my attention, that I wished I had chimed in on this discussion from the beginning. Anyway... I have a few points that I want to make:
1. I fully agree with Capslock, Justlikeapill, and Phissionkorps. Look at their arguments and rebuttals, and it is clear that they just plain make sense.
2. On gun control: Guns are a double edged sword. They can be used for good and bad. The bottom line is that guns should be allowed to all "Law-abiding citizens". Sure there is one key weakness to this argument, and that is: everyone is a law abiding citizen until they aren't. This does not mean that because a few people decide to use guns for negative purposes, that all people should pay the price. Guns in fact are a good thing. Aside from the insurance against a tyranical government, guns provide safety in many ways. Check out John Lott's "More Guns, Less Crime", if you need more clarification. Sure this is only one man's observation, but he cites many references and a plethora of data. I can go on and on about guns (as you might have guessed), but I think the majority of us here understand the reality of the issue... And of course the greatest argument, however cliche, is that guns don't kill people, people kill people. This, in all its simplicity, holds the greatest truth. I could kill someone with a pencil if I wanted to, and if I really wanted to, I can make a gun from raw materials.
3. Gay Marriage: To Outsiders: If you truly don't have any qualms with the union of a gay couple, then why does the name bother you so much? If you really think they should have the same rights, then why can't they call themselves married? You said that they should be given equal treatment, but then you say that they should be differentiated by name. To support this you cite the traditional definition of 'marriage' in history. Isn't one of our greatest qualities as humans our ability to adapt? Sure, from a legal, or religious, standpoint marriage may have been interpreted as a union between a man and a woman, but the reality is that gay couples have been around forever. Why should they not be afforded the same comfort of a proper name? It is hard for me to understand how the sharing of a name can move you so deeply as to necessitate your vociferous oppostion (in light of your alleged 'tolerance').
4. Religion: I barely even want to touch this topic... I've already had a few words with Outsiders about it before but... I have a few basic problems with religions in general, and some of them are as follows: A. The bible was written by man, not God. B. There is zero, and I do mean zero, proof of the existence of God. C. The Old Testament, shared by heavy contenders of religion: Judaism, Islam, and Christianity to name a few, is riddled with what can best be described as fairy tales and mythical creatures and events. D. Religion has caused more death and suffering than all other disputes, ever.
I do like some aspects of religion though... I do like that many of them instill respect, kindness, and altruism among their followers. I don't like the fact that many also believe you will suffer if you do not ascribe to their beliefs though.
5. Evolution: Really? I mean really? How is this even disputed? This is a freaking carnivorous plant discussion forum. Is there one type of nepenthes? Is there one human race? Insects change, plants change, animals change, and humans change. It's a very simple FACT. The only real question is whether humans evolved fully on earth. We may have come from another planet for all we know. The universe is incomprehensibly huge, and the possibilities are nearly infinite. Sure God may exist in one form or another, but I can gurantee that no religion known to man encompasses the truth of the matter. It has been proven scientifically that electrons can randomly appear in a vacuum for a millisecond, where no other matter is present. This may even be how all matter was created. But then one must question how these laws of matter, physics, and existence, exist. I gurantee you though, that God (if it exists) did not limit him/herself to Earth and create the Universe as an afterthought so that we may be central to all other existence.
6. Global Warming: All I know is it's hot as balls lately. I don't know for certain whether it's the Sun, the Earth, or Mankind that is causing the heat but I do know one thing for certain: Man isn't helping. To say that man has not caused any footprint on our global situation, is like saying that we are not responsible for the extinction of a large amount of species of plants and animals. The simple fact of the matter is that man is overpopulating the earth, and we have many different impacts which we can only begin to comprehend. What we can do is limit our impact on earth and let nature run its natural course.
7. Back to the main topic: Ron Paul: Like any good politician, Ron Paul brings up many good points. He does aim to bring the country back to the ideals of the constitution, but he also has shortcomings. My biggest problem is his intention of abolishing the Department of Education. In return he wants the issue of education to be handled by the states. I did a lot of research on the history of education in the U.S. and I created a thesis during college. While I will not bore you with the specifics, the simple fact of the matter is that government (federal) sponsored education is a necessary facet of American culture. The only change that should be made to the department of education, is an attempt to improve it, rather than abolish it. Many of Paul's other ideals I do agree with, namely the restoration of power to the states, however some things are better left to the federal government.
I have sooo many more things I want to add to this response, but I am pressed for time. It's nearly 2 AM and I have a list of things to do over the next couple of days before moving. I really wish I got in on this discussion from the beginning
.
1. I fully agree with Capslock, Justlikeapill, and Phissionkorps. Look at their arguments and rebuttals, and it is clear that they just plain make sense.
2. On gun control: Guns are a double edged sword. They can be used for good and bad. The bottom line is that guns should be allowed to all "Law-abiding citizens". Sure there is one key weakness to this argument, and that is: everyone is a law abiding citizen until they aren't. This does not mean that because a few people decide to use guns for negative purposes, that all people should pay the price. Guns in fact are a good thing. Aside from the insurance against a tyranical government, guns provide safety in many ways. Check out John Lott's "More Guns, Less Crime", if you need more clarification. Sure this is only one man's observation, but he cites many references and a plethora of data. I can go on and on about guns (as you might have guessed), but I think the majority of us here understand the reality of the issue... And of course the greatest argument, however cliche, is that guns don't kill people, people kill people. This, in all its simplicity, holds the greatest truth. I could kill someone with a pencil if I wanted to, and if I really wanted to, I can make a gun from raw materials.
3. Gay Marriage: To Outsiders: If you truly don't have any qualms with the union of a gay couple, then why does the name bother you so much? If you really think they should have the same rights, then why can't they call themselves married? You said that they should be given equal treatment, but then you say that they should be differentiated by name. To support this you cite the traditional definition of 'marriage' in history. Isn't one of our greatest qualities as humans our ability to adapt? Sure, from a legal, or religious, standpoint marriage may have been interpreted as a union between a man and a woman, but the reality is that gay couples have been around forever. Why should they not be afforded the same comfort of a proper name? It is hard for me to understand how the sharing of a name can move you so deeply as to necessitate your vociferous oppostion (in light of your alleged 'tolerance').
4. Religion: I barely even want to touch this topic... I've already had a few words with Outsiders about it before but... I have a few basic problems with religions in general, and some of them are as follows: A. The bible was written by man, not God. B. There is zero, and I do mean zero, proof of the existence of God. C. The Old Testament, shared by heavy contenders of religion: Judaism, Islam, and Christianity to name a few, is riddled with what can best be described as fairy tales and mythical creatures and events. D. Religion has caused more death and suffering than all other disputes, ever.
I do like some aspects of religion though... I do like that many of them instill respect, kindness, and altruism among their followers. I don't like the fact that many also believe you will suffer if you do not ascribe to their beliefs though.
5. Evolution: Really? I mean really? How is this even disputed? This is a freaking carnivorous plant discussion forum. Is there one type of nepenthes? Is there one human race? Insects change, plants change, animals change, and humans change. It's a very simple FACT. The only real question is whether humans evolved fully on earth. We may have come from another planet for all we know. The universe is incomprehensibly huge, and the possibilities are nearly infinite. Sure God may exist in one form or another, but I can gurantee that no religion known to man encompasses the truth of the matter. It has been proven scientifically that electrons can randomly appear in a vacuum for a millisecond, where no other matter is present. This may even be how all matter was created. But then one must question how these laws of matter, physics, and existence, exist. I gurantee you though, that God (if it exists) did not limit him/herself to Earth and create the Universe as an afterthought so that we may be central to all other existence.
6. Global Warming: All I know is it's hot as balls lately. I don't know for certain whether it's the Sun, the Earth, or Mankind that is causing the heat but I do know one thing for certain: Man isn't helping. To say that man has not caused any footprint on our global situation, is like saying that we are not responsible for the extinction of a large amount of species of plants and animals. The simple fact of the matter is that man is overpopulating the earth, and we have many different impacts which we can only begin to comprehend. What we can do is limit our impact on earth and let nature run its natural course.
7. Back to the main topic: Ron Paul: Like any good politician, Ron Paul brings up many good points. He does aim to bring the country back to the ideals of the constitution, but he also has shortcomings. My biggest problem is his intention of abolishing the Department of Education. In return he wants the issue of education to be handled by the states. I did a lot of research on the history of education in the U.S. and I created a thesis during college. While I will not bore you with the specifics, the simple fact of the matter is that government (federal) sponsored education is a necessary facet of American culture. The only change that should be made to the department of education, is an attempt to improve it, rather than abolish it. Many of Paul's other ideals I do agree with, namely the restoration of power to the states, however some things are better left to the federal government.
I have sooo many more things I want to add to this response, but I am pressed for time. It's nearly 2 AM and I have a list of things to do over the next couple of days before moving. I really wish I got in on this discussion from the beginning
.
May I point out that just because you do not believe it does not make it true. The beliefs of any single person or group of people do not change what actually is
The papers are not faked, as I said I have seen them. But you do not believe that so...
No I am not arguing for it. I am arguing that if it is legitimate for there to be a union of flesh and blood person to a piece of plastic then any union between two flesh and blood people should be legitimate.
By admitting that I placed you under that umbrella I was 1) admitting to my own personal bias and 2) offering an invitation to change my mind. I am so grateful that you instead took it instead as an opportunity to deal out a personal insult. That was very adult of you
Right back at you.
Actually scratch that. I'll reword it here since it seems I was too unclear.
When I say someone is against same sex relationships I mean that they do not approve. To not approve is merely an opinion.
"Hate" on the other hand is a much more intense thing. Something deeply felt on a mental/psychological/emotional level.
So, based on your numerous posts, where you speak your mind rather openly, it comes off to me that you do not approve of (and therefore are against) same sex relationships. If I am wrong on that then so be it I will gladly admit it. But you are going to have to prove to me that I am wrong in some way other than sniping at me and insulting me.
You are only as naive as you chose to be. As I said above so I say again, The universe is not obliged to change what is just because you do not believe in something.
As I said above, your numerous, very vocal posts give me the impression that you do not approve of same sex relationships. That is not "ignorance" that is just how you come off.
And I am going to close (and stay gone) after this little tidbit. Since you are so into the definition for what constitutes marriage let me ask this. Aside from the Man + Woman that you stand by what exactly is the difference between a "marriage" and a "civil union"? They are both viewed the same by the taxman and the benefits groups and the census bureau and all that jazz yes? So, if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck and acts like a duck they why on Earth should we call it a chicken?? Regardless of whether they are mallards or pintails they are still ducks. Regardless of whether they are heterosexual or homosexual they are still committed couples who want to be recognized as being together.
That is all for me. I shan't be back to this thread.
Clint
Stay chooned in for more!
Well, there was no "first" koala. It was a kolaesque animal that ate probably many things, but later specialized and found it's niche and evolved to only eat eucalyptus. It's like "Which came first, the chicken or the egg?" Neither. A reptilian protochicken that laid eggs came first!
The horror.
The horror.
Exactly. One of these "kolaesque animal" mutated some gene that allowed them to eat eucalyptus leaves, diversifying their ability to eat and allowing them to eat more foods, thus allowing them more opportunities to survive and reproduce and spread this gene. Who knows, maybe eucalyptus leaves could have been in a safer environment thus further assisting this evolutionary growth and development.
It's the same with animals that are immune to snake venom, as I think rattler suggested. These animals weren't always this way, but thanks to one animal having a mutated gene they "adapted" and were able to better survive.
It was also a good point anout carnivorous plants. That example goes without saying...
xvart.
Of course you're going to join the bandwagon.
Do you think gays/lesbians would have qualms if I started calling them straight or heterosexuals? They aren't straight or heterosexuals and want to be known that they are in fact gay or homosexuals and they are proud of it. So why would it be appropriate to give the name of a union that has ALWAYS belonged to heterosexual couples to homosexuals or anyone else who isn't heterosexual (ex: dolls, animals or invisible people)? It would be like categorizing a new rap artist's music as classical and placing it with Beethoven.
Once again, and this has been repeated several times...Why is it necessary to call a gay union a marriage to have the same legal rights? It isn't necessary.
Please give me a legal example of how the difference in a term would disenfranchise a gay union if it said in the law that they had the same legal rights as a marriage. Would you 'adapt' and place Beethoven in the R&B section of a music store?
Yes but marriage has always been an institution between a man and a woman, there never has been any other interpretation which is why it is ridiculous to say we need to change it. It doesn't need to be changed, instead Gays deserve their own term for their unions.
What comfort would the title marriage bring to gays? You do realize that not all of the gay community wants to be called a gay marriage right? There are gays out there that aren't ashamed of their lifestyle and do not want to be lumped as a marriage because they clearly understand there's a difference and are proud of it.
A. Did you witness the creation of the Bible? Did God personally tell you this? If you accept the notion that there is a God, who created everything mind you, why would it be impossible for Him to communicate through a vessel (man) and assist with the Bible? If you ever do get a chance to read the Bible and still hold this thought that it was just man derived think about this. What is the message of the Bible? Why would man write something that is so counter to the way the world is as we know it. Standards so high that God Himself had to come down in human flesh and live the perfect life to make atonement because no one could live the Holy life God calls us to live. How many God's do you know of that love you unconditionally, even when you're His enemy? How many God's do you know of that would gladly take the wrath and punishment we deserve for our sin and wickedness upon Himself, when He was perfect and without fault? If man truly wrote the Bible, women would be sex objects for men's disposal. If man truly wrote the Bible, God would have told us the opposite of the 10 commandments. If man truly wrote the Bible, God would have told us to care about ourselves and screw everyone else. I wonder how many people actually sat down and studied the Bible with an open mind and came to the same conclusion you have. Instead people would rather learn what the Bible is by people who've never read it or understand it or can comprehend it.
The last thing we need is another religious person to damn everyone to hell. If you care about God, seek a relationship with God. I think accepting God's grace is very minor to what we truly deserve. Seriously have you ever sat down and analyzed your life? Sure some of us try to live a life of goodness but how good is it in reality? I bet if we're honest we can all admit we all fall short of what is truly righteous.
The problem here is the FACT that evolution is a THEORY. As I said earlier yes populations can change and listed examples such as MRSA that's immune to antibiotics. However the major issue with the theory of evolution is that people try to apply it as the source for the origin of life. That everything you see today on the Earth evolved from a one-celled thing in the ocean billions of years ago by randomness.
God does not tell us the exact process of how we were created. What He does tell us is that He created us, that it wasn't from randomness and that everything you see on the Earth today didn't evolve from one common ancestor. Instead God tells us that first He created the Earth and then created the vegetation, the living things in the water, air and land. Then finally He specifically says He created man and then woman. Does this mean that all these creations couldn't have evolved in some way to deal with the conditions of the Earth since their creation, no. It just clearly states that we are not a product of monkeys. Humans share 50% of the same DNA as a banana, and 60% of the same DNA as a fruit fly. Does it make more sense that we share a common ancestor to those two or that a creator used the same building materials to make all the life on Earth? It's not a question that you need to answer on here and I know people will still choose to believe they are a random mistake from the ocean billions of years ago and that's fine. It's your choice to put faith in that.
From what I understand the closest relative to a Koala is a Wombat and they can't and don't eat Eucalyptus. Lastly it's populations that evolve, not individuals.
Adapting to snake venom and having a specialized digestive system that can handle Eucalyptus are two different things.
If it were fictionally possible to give you 1,000,000,000,000,000 lifetimes and in each lifetime we gave you cyanide, do you think you would evolve an adaption?
Koalas don't have a mutated gene, they have a specialized digestive system that allows them to handle Eucalyptus leaves. The time it would take for their digestive systems to evolve to handle the cyanide would be too long and they would die from the cyanide. This is not a simple gene mutation.
Because, shockingly, some churches are ready and willing to perform "marriages" to gay couples. This is a "marriage" recognized by their faith system and they should not be discriminated on based on a, oftentimes, christian faith that is not supported by the government and the other religious affiliations. If a christian church wants to recognize the holy union of a man and a man or a woman and a woman they should have the right to do so! Obviously, there are many different "interpretations" of the holy bible and just because one particular group believes their "interpretation" is better or more correct or holier than the other group. If you don't like it, then don't go to that church. If a church does something that doesn't fall into your values and morals, then obviously that is not the church for you. But let the people that do subscribe to these values attend.
These days, yes, that may be correct. But there was a time when the species were much more closely related and they were not "wombats" and "koalas." It's similar with plants. Differentiation and speciation occurs because of differences that define the species and help them reproduce more successfully, with each generation further defining the characteristics that we now recognize as intuitive and obvious.
A specialized digestive system that has been further developed and defined by evolution and "survival of the fittest." The Koala's that did not get the basic "mutated" gene were not able to live among those that did get it from their relatives. You know what they did? They stayed in the area where there was not eucalyptus leaves and became wombats. Or they died because there was not as much food since they had a smaller food selection. This example is very rudimentary because it could have happened a dozen ways, but given the confines of this example it is an obvious conclusion and trail of thought.
You're absolutely right. It's not a simple gene mutation. That's what evolution is. It's the gradual and slow change in adaptation and speciation.
I'm sorry to say but the world has been here for a significant amount of time.
xvart.
If you think evolution isn't a fact, and that it doesn't occur, you don't deserve an education and you need to get off this board.
If you have qualms with us understanding the mechanisms of evolution, fine. Some of those are theoretical. If you're saying evolution in and of itself isn't a fact....is recommending suicide illegal?
If you have qualms with us understanding the mechanisms of evolution, fine. Some of those are theoretical. If you're saying evolution in and of itself isn't a fact....is recommending suicide illegal?
You are aware that I lifted the concept of "evolution is both a fact and a theory" straight from Stephen J. Gould, who just happens to be one of the greatest and most widely-respected evolutionary biologists of the past century, right?
Are you seriously saying that you know more about evolution than one of the greatest evolutionary biologists ever?
The fact is that we have empirically observed evolution. We *can* prove it happens because we see it happen, precisely the same way I can prove there's a red ball in a box - direct observation.
So, how many scientific conferences have *you* presented at? How many scientific papers have you published? In top-tier journals?
Right, zero. Don't pretend to tell me I don't understand science, kid.
For your information, that theories are tentative does NOT mean 'faith' is involved. Faith would be if we believed a given theory was 100% correct, but ALL scientists acknowledge that theories are tentative and vulnerable to future alteration.
What you fail to realize is that any new theory must not only explain the data that invalidated the old one, but all of the data which supported the old one too. This has happened twice to evolution, and is happening right now. First, evolution had to be reformulated in light of the discovery of Mendel's laws. Then non-selective methods had to be incorporated as a result of discoveries in molecular biology. Now developmental biology is being incorporated into evolution through the new field of evolutionary developmental biology, aka 'evo-devo'.
So basically, anything which altered our understanding of evolution would simply result in "evolution 4.0". Evolution can no more be undermined by new data than gravity can be - regardless of what new information shows, the empirical phenomenon cannot be disputed.
Wrong - there are precisely ZERO working biologists who do not believe in evolution. It's the single, unifying theory underlying all of biology.
And that moron was fired because they joined an EVOLUTION lab and then refused to do experiments. That's like me expecting not to be fired if I take a janitorial position and then state my religion forbids me to clean.
I'm sure you'll also bring up the creationist who lost a tenure bid recently, and I'll head that off now. He lost tenure for the same reason most people do - inability to win extramural grants and a poor record of publications.
What a coincidence, I'm up for an award for teaching biology this year.
Once again, nobody has 'faith' in theories, at least not by the definition of 'faith' that applies to religious faith. And you don't need 'faith' in observations/data.
To analogize to my work, I believe my theories on arboreal locomotion are accurate, but I can PROVE that in trial #2 on the 2.2" peg-perch snake #3 moved a 0.45 SVL/sec. The former is theory, the latter is data.
Evolution is like that - there's theory, yes, but there are actual observations of evolution happening, including one species evolving from another. These are proven because they are observations of a real-world occurence, not theories about the underlying mechanisms.
To be truly fair, there *are* some arguments for subtle differences, mostly due to competition between non-interbreeding groups (different species/genera/families competing for the same niche), but on the whole, you're correct: it's just a difference in timescales.
Simple: Koalas weren't always Eucalyptus specialists. The original proto-koalas lacked resistance and ate lots of different plants. Now, cyanide isn't some sort of 'insta-death' - it's even present in your own body in miniscule amounts, and small doses can be effectively detoxified. Like any natural population, the proto-koalas had lots of variation, including a variation in how much cyanide they could handle before becoming ill. Individuals who could eat 20 leaves a day did better than those who could only eat 10 on account of having more food. Those who could eat 30 would do better still, and over time, the most resistant individuals would breed more, resulting in a overall change in average population resistance. Over time, koalas became more and more resistant, until finally they became completely resistant.
It's actually similar to something we recently saw in flies (when we directly observed the origin of a new species). The original population of flies laid eggs in cactus, the larvae ate the cactus and eventually metamorphosed into flies. They were unable to lay in a particular species of cactus which had toxins. Then, a mutant appeared which had resistance to the toxin, and could lay in the toxic cactus. Interestingly, the mutants dealt with the toxin by turning it into a chemical they needed, and eventually, they lost the ability to naturally produce the chemical, becoming totally dependent upon the toxic cactus. The end result was two populations (original and toxin-dependent) who could not interbreed, therefore qualifying as different species.
If you want more information on the evolution of toxin resistance, look up pesticide resistance in insects. The main reason we have to keep changing and strengthening pesticides is because the insects evolve resistance.
Wrong. Numerous cultures have included same-sex marriage within the definition, including christianity - the church performed same-sex weddings until the 10th century.
Um, digestive specializations are actually quite easy, evolutionarily speaking. Cyanide isn't actually very nasty and is fairly easy to detoxify compared to some of the more advanced toxins out there.
And, in fact, it would take far less time than you think for such resistance to evolve. You, me, and everyone here carried an average of 5 mutations that affect final protein structure, and one person in a million has a full gene-duplication. It's been shown that a single mutation with a mere 5% increase in fitness can spread through a population within 200 generations, and in many species, 200 generations is about 400 years or less.
Seriously, go get one of Stephen J Gould's books out and read it. You'll find it all a lot more clear.
Um, that specialized digestive system is built by genes. *Everything* is genes. And remember, a single gene doesn't always produce just one protein - if it's a developmental gene, one mutation can drastically alter where, when and how dozens of other genes are expressed. We've identified a single mutation that gives chickens teeth (which, incidentally, look exactly like theropod dinosaur teeth) (it's the talpid-2 mutation).
Also, as JLAP and I have pointed out, ancestral Koalas ate other things, and only ate limited eucalyptus based on their resistance.
The ability to build a tolerance is different from evolution. If I build a tolerance to rattlesnake venom, then have kids, my kids will be just as vulnerable as anyone else. However, if you give 1000 people an injection of venom, different people will be affected more or less, and if you breed all the less-affected people, then resistance will evolve.
RattlerMt, I know you like herps, so I suggest checking out the work of Brodie jr. and Brodie III on the arms race between toxic newts and garter snakes. Some of the snakes are actually now poisonous (not venomous, but rather toxic if eaten due to stored, unprocessed newt toxins).
Mokele
Last edited by a moderator:
what i ment Mokele was that if humans were exposed enough to snake venom over generations we can develop imunity to snake venom just as wild mice do.the storing poisons thing is nothing new. dart frogs store and concentrate toxins instead of producing their own which is why ones kept in captivity arent really to toxic....they are sume what due to poisons they do produce but the real deadly stuff comes from their diet. does not surprise me in the least that garters would do the same thing with newts
