# Frogs & Toads > Pacman Frogs >  Genus vs. Specie

## cali

Anybody in need of, or know an individual in need of a topic for their biology dissertation? (hey- possible paper-publication here...)

Pacman's seem to be a great candidate for reclassification (original Genus was described in 1824).

Ceratophrys Cranwelli (Genus/specie) by definition would only be able to breed with (and have viable young) other Ceratophrys Cranwelli (and sub-species of).
If, as I understand it, a "samurai blue" is a cross between Ceratophrys Cranwelli and Ceratophrys Ornata, then they should be grouped as sub-species in a new species category (Ornwelli ?)- whereas Ceratophrys Cornuta- wich is unable to produce viable offspring when crossed with another variant (resulting in "fantasys") would be correctly placed in it's current taxonomical position.

I always found this topic intriguing when I bred Lichanura Trivirgata and Labeotropheus Trewavasae/Fuelleborni.

----------


## pyxieBob

where did you hear of Samuari Blues being a cross of Cranwellis and Ornata, ? 


---
I am here: http://tapatalk.com/map.php?gudr2e

----------


## pyxieBob

they are pure Cranwellis 


---
I am here: http://tapatalk.com/map.php?12qy3m

----------


## cali

I was under the impression that they were more than just a color strain- they're total appearance, along with the majority of the japanese varieties, are different than that of a standard phase or albino.

Where is it stated that the blues were originally an anomoly from a breeding pair of cranwell's ?

----------


## pyxieBob

from the creator himself, Yuskue Murai. i talk to him frequently. and he confirmed they are simply 100% Cranwelli. 


---
I am here: http://tapatalk.com/map.php?gwwtng

----------


## GeorgiaBulls

So can cranwelli x ornate offspring breed? Been wondering about this for a couple wks..

----------


## pyxieBob

that I don't know, does anyone have and pictures of a Cranwelli Ornata cross?? 


---
I am here: http://tapatalk.com/map.php?cxatyj

----------


## RibbitSrUs

Yes they can be crossed, its a red cranwelli pretty much. I emailed Yusuke the other day and sent him a pic of a red cranwelli i had and he confirmed that it was a cross between a ornate and a cranwelli.

----------


## pyxieBob

looks like one one my frogs, and yes I know they can be crossed. we were questioning weather or not the Onata Cranwelli crosses can breed 


---
I am here: http://tapatalk.com/map.php?gtopgg

----------


## RibbitSrUs

That im not sure of, that would be a good question for Yusuke.

----------


## IvoryReptiles

My understanding is that the cranwelli ornata cross was done years ago and was tentatively called an Orwell.......I also heard that the offspring were fragile & that none of the originals survived long enough to breed or breeding attempts failed. But that is old information and still needs to be proven either correct or incorrect.

----------


## cali

I still find the overall look of the japanese verietys suspicious. It's more than just colors. Aren't the eyelid horns more dominant in cranwell's? The blues look to me to have very small horns and a more domed skull. Sure selective/line breeding for a specific trait will tend to have side effects and more genetic variance than just the intended ones, but I still find their look suspect. (And I'm just saying- if I was selling frogs for $5,000 a shot, I don't think I'd be completely forthcoming with my formula)

Granted- the japanese are pretty hard-core when they embrace a project, and they might have come across a random specimen with a one-of-a-kind allele that their entire line of exotic morphs are derived from. But considering how many other breeders there are, in many different countrys, with thousands of eggs in a single clutch- shouldn't someone else have come across a variant without using a breeder from japan?

----------


## pyxieBob

I agree w that 100000% Cali. I really do. the fact that the blues retain the color into adulthood and a reg green Cranwelli will ALWAYS turn brown. and the fact that some blues turn into mutants... something is in the water with the blues......... 


---
I am here: http://tapatalk.com/map.php?xswte4

----------


## Colleen/Jerrod

> I still find the overall look of the japanese verietys suspicious. It's more than just colors. Aren't the eyelid horns more dominant in cranwell's? The blues look to me to have very small horns and a more domed skull. Sure selective/line breeding for a specific trait will tend to have side effects and more genetic variance than just the intended ones, but I still find their look suspect. (And I'm just saying- if I was selling frogs for $5,000 a shot, I don't think I'd be completely forthcoming with my formula)
> 
> Granted- the japanese are pretty hard-core when they embrace a project, and they might have come across a random specimen with a one-of-a-kind allele that their entire line of exotic morphs are derived from. But considering how many other breeders there are, in many different countrys, with thousands of eggs in a single clutch- shouldn't someone else have come across a variant without using a breeder from japan?


I believe the DNA was altered while. In the egg to add color pigment traits that are normally absent. Probably by lacking in one color like black as the Albinos do. Which is why they there are. Lime Green Albinos.

----------


## Colleen/Jerrod

> looks like one one my frogs, and yes I know they can be crossed. we were questioning weather or not the Onata Cranwelli crosses can breed 
> 
> 
> ---
> I am here: http://tapatalk.com/map.php?gtopgg


Its funny. In that pic DK looks just like a frog version of Donkey Kong Lol! :Big Grin:

----------


## pyxieBob

totally Griff! something is prob being added at the egg stage. that's how they "triploid" rainbow trout. in the hatchery they apply extra heat and pressure onto the eggs and they truly form a 3rd chromosome an turn into these huge bulky aggressive monsters 


---
I am here: http://tapatalk.com/map.php?z4garl

----------


## pyxieBob

but at the same time, what ever is being done to make these frogs be blue IS genetic because 2 blue pacs bred normally make blue babies 


---
I am here: http://tapatalk.com/map.php?lewwvp

----------


## Colleen/Jerrod

> but at the same time, what ever is being done to make these frogs be blue IS genetic because 2 blue pacs bred normally make blue babies 
> 
> 
> ---
> I am here: http://tapatalk.com/map.php?lewwvp


Yes. The change in the DNA is perminant. So when the cells duplicate they remain in the same altered state so therfore even the cells that the eggs are made up of take on the genetic traits of the parents altered cell and DNA. This also. Makes me conclued that the Blues. That fade to  Seafoam green fade to this color because they are possibley taking on a dominant traid from a actaul. Unaltered Cranwelli. You know the way. That all Cranwellies fade to brown :Wink: .

----------


## pyxieBob

eeeewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww


---
I am here: http://tapatalk.com/map.php?lagnes

----------


## Colleen/Jerrod

> eeeewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww
> 
> 
> ---
> I am here: http://tapatalk.com/map.php?lagnes


Possibley that. A full Blue was bred with a normal Green or Brown Cranwelli and the young would start out with the Blue and then the trait that causes the browns and. Greens to fade becomes dominant and caauses the blue to fade to seafoam. What do you think?

----------


## pyxieBob

possible, I think that's just the nature of any Ceratophrys tho. because sky blue babies that fade to seafoam isn't very drastic, not drastic like a bright green baby into a fully brown adult. it's more like how much the albinos fade. maybe even less of a fade than albinos 


---
I am here: http://tapatalk.com/map.php?5vdwfv

----------


## Colleen/Jerrod

> possible, I think that's just the nature of any Ceratophrys tho. because sky blue babies that fade to seafoam isn't very drastic, not drastic like a bright green baby into a fully brown adult. it's more like how much the albinos fade. maybe even less of a fade than albinos 
> 
> 
> ---
> I am here: http://tapatalk.com/map.php?5vdwfv


Perhaps their DNA and genetics isn't to far from the way Albinos are. Maybe they lack a color that causes them to appear blue. Loki was Olive Green and is turning a mix or green/tan/brown/and almost a white in some of his highlites.

----------


## pyxieBob

hopefully we know the secret one day. he said he created this phase over 10 years ago. but the random mutants are the dead give away it's not totally natural 


---
I am here: http://tapatalk.com/map.php?irmn4q

----------


## IvoryReptiles

Okay, we have been breeding for a few years now and have kept some holdbacks......we have greens that have remained green to adulthood. The coloring does change somewhat, but they are still green. I am talking about our cranwelli. I have seen fading & intensifying of all the colors we have gotten. Some dull out, some get brighter. Albeit, we have none that are as green as an Apple, but they are predominately green. 

That does it......we are gonna try for an Orwell!! LOL

----------


## Colleen/Jerrod

> Okay, we have been breeding for a few years now and have kept some holdbacks......we have greens that have remained green to adulthood. The coloring does change somewhat, but they are still green. I am talking about our cranwelli. I have seen fading & intensifying of all the colors we have gotten. Some dull out, some get brighter. Albeit, we have none that are as green as an Apple, but they are predominately green. 
> 
> That does it......we are gonna try for an Orwell!! LOL


Lol!  Do it Jess. I've seen a coupke pics of different ones and they look really colorful.

----------


## Colleen/Jerrod

> hopefully we know the secret one day. he said he created this phase over 10 years ago. but the random mutants are the dead give away it's not totally natural 
> 
> 
> ---
> I am here: http://tapatalk.com/map.php?irmn4q


Hopefully the. Mutants don't have weakened imune system.

----------


## pyxieBob

I bet they do, those rainbow trout I spoke of have lots of weird quirks 


---
I am here: http://tapatalk.com/map.php?ci0blo

----------


## Colleen/Jerrod

> I bet they do, those rainbow trout I spoke of have lots of weird quirks 
> 
> 
> ---
> I am here: http://tapatalk.com/map.php?ci0blo


I'm not surprised. The mutants are probably a combination of all the rejected cells and recessive traits.

----------


## SkeletalFrog

> Anybody in need of, or know an individual in need of a topic for their biology dissertation? (hey- possible paper-publication here...)
> 
> Pacman's seem to be a great candidate for reclassification (original Genus was described in 1824).
> 
> Ceratophrys Cranwelli (Genus/specie) by definition would only be able to breed with (and have viable young) other Ceratophrys Cranwelli (and sub-species of).
> If, as I understand it, a "samurai blue" is a cross between Ceratophrys Cranwelli and Ceratophrys Ornata, then they should be grouped as sub-species in a new species category (Ornwelli ?)- whereas Ceratophrys Cornuta- wich is unable to produce viable offspring when crossed with another variant (resulting in "fantasys") would be correctly placed in it's current taxonomical position.
> 
> I always found this topic intriguing when I bred Lichanura Trivirgata and Labeotropheus Trewavasae/Fuelleborni.


Technically, it's always "species", both singular and plural, like "sheep" or "moose".

Also, the definition of "species" doesn't necessarily hinge on total incompatability.  Generally speaking, species do not interbreed, but there are numerous exceptions, including species which do interbreed to form "hybrid zones" in certain areas.  If they are isolated, this can be through numerous mechanisms, including incompatibilities that don't show up in captivity, such as slightly different breeding seasons, as well as infertile hybrids or even just hybrids that aren't as capable of survival in the wild as the parents.

An extreme example is actually a side-project I have with one of more genetics-oriented evolution faculty here, involving cross-genus hybrids (_Lampropeltis getula californiae X Elaphe obsoleta obsoleta_) which not only do just fine in captivity, but are fertile as well.  The two lineages have been separated for ~18 million years, yet still form fertile hybrids.

----------


## Colleen/Jerrod

> Technically, it's always "species", both singular and plural, like "sheep" or "moose".
> 
> Also, the definition of "species" doesn't necessarily hinge on total incompatability.  Generally speaking, species do not interbreed, but there are numerous exceptions, including species which do interbreed to form "hybrid zones" in certain areas.  If they are isolated, this can be through numerous mechanisms, including incompatibilities that don't show up in captivity, such as slightly different breeding seasons, as well as infertile hybrids or even just hybrids that aren't as capable of survival in the wild as the parents.
> 
> An extreme example is actually a side-project I have with one of more genetics-oriented evolution faculty here, involving cross-genus hybrids (_Lampropeltis getula californiae X Elaphe obsoleta obsoleta_) which not only do just fine in captivity, but are fertile as well.  The two lineages have been separated for ~18 million years, yet still form fertile hybrids.


That's very interesting.

----------


## pyxieBob

100% correct any the species spelling lol 


---
I am here: http://tapatalk.com/map.php?mdp2zo

----------


## pyxieBob

About * not Any* stupid brown frog auto text!


---
I am here: http://tapatalk.com/map.php?hw5toh

----------


## cali

> Technically, it's always "species"...


Ya, that quip was hit-or-miss at work too.



The Pantherophis/ Lampropeltis/ Elaphe debate is an excellent example. They have been shuffled and re-shuffled since discovery- there are multiple arguments being played out as we speak to re-classify their current nomenclature.

Given that the native range of Ornates and Cranwells overlap- if young are viable, then they would be geographical subs.
DNA from local-specific specimens would be great, but I'm not trying to burn up a grant here- simply asking for a general consensus.

----------


## SkeletalFrog

> Given that the native range of Ornates and Cranwells overlap- if young are viable, then they would be geographical subs.
> DNA from local-specific specimens would be great, but I'm not trying to burn up a grant here- simply asking for a general consensus.


Not necessarily.  The are plenty of clearly morphologically divergent species with overlapping ranges and intermittent hybridization, including the very icons of evolution, Darwin's finches.  Hybridization is not a disqualifier for species status.

So far, we only have evidence that they can sometimes hybridize under captive conditions (potentially with mixed success).  They may not hybridize in the wild at all due to slightly different breeding times or preferred congregation areas or call preferences, etc.  Even if they do, if the hybrids are strongly weeded out of the gene pool, gene flow will be minimal.  Heck, even if the hybrids are just as strong, they could be infertile or just never manage to mate because their call has the wrong frequency for either parent (frog mating responses are *strongly* tuned to specific call frequencies).


However, a bit of googling turned up a conclusive answer, in this paper: 1320 Cranial morphology and karyotypic analysis of Ceratophrys joazeirensis (Anura: Ceratophryidae, Ceratophrynae): taxonomic considerations | Mendeley  (full version here: http://ecoevo.com.br/alunos/ana_paul...otaxa_2006.pdf)

Basically, ornata is octoploid, while cranwelli is diploid.  Any hybrid's cells would therefore have unpaired chromosomes, preventing meiosis and rendering the hybrids totally infertile.

----------


## Colleen/Jerrod

> About * not Any* stupid brown frog auto text!
> 
> 
> ---
> I am here: http://tapatalk.com/map.php?hw5toh


Hey the Brown frog isn't to blame here. You have too many green frogs and the lack of a brown is affecting you and your equipment. Come on Bobby, even out the collection with a nice Chocolate Chacoan. You'll feel better and you'll spell better. Your phone will work for you too :Wink: .

----------


## Colleen/Jerrod

> Not necessarily.  The are plenty of clearly morphologically divergent species with overlapping ranges and intermittent hybridization, including the very icons of evolution, Darwin's finches.  Hybridization is not a disqualifier for species status.
> 
> So far, we only have evidence that they can sometimes hybridize under captive conditions (potentially with mixed success).  They may not hybridize in the wild at all due to slightly different breeding times or preferred congregation areas or call preferences, etc.  Even if they do, if the hybrids are strongly weeded out of the gene pool, gene flow will be minimal.  Heck, even if the hybrids are just as strong, they could be infertile or just never manage to mate because their call has the wrong frequency for either parent (frog mating responses are *strongly* tuned to specific call frequencies).
> 
> 
> However, a bit of googling turned up a conclusive answer, in this paper: 1320 Cranial morphology and karyotypic analysis of Ceratophrys joazeirensis (Anura: Ceratophryidae, Ceratophrynae): taxonomic considerations | Mendeley  (full version here: http://ecoevo.com.br/alunos/ana_paul...otaxa_2006.pdf)
> 
> Basically, ornata is octoploid, while cranwelli is diploid.  Any hybrid's cells would therefore have unpaired chromosomes, preventing meiosis and rendering the hybrids totally infertile.



So basically its saying that Cranwells can only breed with their own kind to produce offspring that are fertile and if they breed with a any other Ceratophrys. The young are to be infertile? So that would conclued that all Fantacy Frogs are mules? Ornates can reproduce with othe Ceratophrys and still produce fertile young?

----------


## SkeletalFrog

I don't know about *any* other Ceratophrys - they don't mention the chromosome numbers for cornuta, testudo or calcarata.  But they at least have the same chromosome numbers as aurita and joazeirensis.

But there's a lot more to hybridization than fertility, and there could be other genetic incompatabilities even between species with the same number of chromosomes.

----------


## Colleen/Jerrod

> I don't know about *any* other Ceratophrys - they don't mention the chromosome numbers for cornuta, testudo or calcarata.  But they at least have the same chromosome numbers as aurita and joazeirensis.
> 
> But there's a lot more to hybridization than fertility, and there could be other genetic incompatabilities even between species with the same number of chromosomes.


Aurita and Joazeirensis look like types of Cranwellies with different color patterns. That and the Aurita is supposed to be the largest of the Horned Frogs. I guess one day a breeder will attempt to interbreed the different species and see whether of not the offsoring are fertile. Only time will tell.

----------


## cali

Interesting read.


Abstract-
"...morphology between C. joazeirensis (8n)..."

Introduction-
"...The greatest difference between the two species is found at the ploidy level, since C. cranwelli is a 2n species and C. joazeirensis PROBABLY an 8n species..."

Discussion-
"...Barrio and De Chieri (1970) registered diploid populations of C. ornata in soggy central areas of Argentina..."

This one alone hints that ornates and cranwells may interbreed where their populations overlap, and that the genus may need multiple new categorys.

As in most papers, the last couple paragraphs are the most interesting.
Looks to me as though it only reinforces the idea that the genus is in need of a massive amount of research, verification and reclassification.

----------


## cali

This discussion may give birth to a new postulate (for purely hypothetical debate of course)

If "a" breeder (not going to point fingers here) came across a 2n ornate- the hybridization results with a cranwell might be interesting...

----------


## Colleen/Jerrod

> This discussion may give birth to a new postulate (for purely hypothetical debate of course)
> 
> If "a" breeder (not going to point fingers here) came across a 2n ornate- the hybridization results with a cranwell might be interesting...


You can breed Ornates with Cranwellies. The offspring are known as Orwells. Its been done before, but not for quite some time.

----------


## cali

They may also be called samurais or mutants........

----------


## Colleen/Jerrod

> They may also be called samurais or mutants........


The Samurais aren't Orwells. They are Cranwellies. If they were Ornate Hybrids they would have features of Ornates like the false eye spots. Orwells are also not mutants otherwise Fantacy Frogs would also be known as mutants which they are not. They are just a Hybrid produced by mixed breeding of C. Cranwelli and C. Cornuta.

----------


## cali

As for the "false eye"-
Who says that an offspring would carry that trait? It would have just as much chance NOT to carry the trait (since one of it parents had it, one didn't)

Genetics is a funny thing- in theory, the way that a genetic strand splits when creating an egg or sperm, 2 children from the same parents could have 0.00% of the same genetic makeup. Literally, 2 brothers could be absolutely, completely, 100% not related to eachother (genetically speaking). Of course the odds of this happening is beyond ludicrous, just from the shear amount of data involved in a DNA sequence. It would be like 2 people constantly flipping coins for a million years, and everytime they came up opposite. That's not gonna happen- but it's possible.

And if we go back to skeletalfrog's paper, it's quite clear that we know less about our beloved pacmans then we think. It states multiple times that there are 2n specimens of ornates as well as 8n's. Therefore, a 2n ornate would be able to breed with a 2n cranwell, but a 2n ornate would not be able to breed with an 8n ornate.

The term "ornate" may be simple symantics.

----------


## cali

My points are this-

Just because we call it an "Ornate", doesn't mean that it's genetically the same as my neighbors "Ornate"- even if they APPEAR identical.

In crossing of an "Ornate" and a "Cranwell"- there could be 2 offspring, from the same clutch, same parents, wich share zero DNA. Thus- The term "Orwell" would become moot, since it could be used to describe 2 specimens that have 100% different DNA.

Now of course these last 2 posts of mine are simplified, but 100% accurate and true.

----------


## Colleen/Jerrod

> As for the "false eye"-
> Who says that an offspring would carry that trait? It would have just as much chance NOT to carry the trait (since one of it parents had it, one didn't)
> 
> Genetics is a funny thing- in theory, the way that a genetic strand splits when creating an egg or sperm, 2 children from the same parents could have 0.00% of the same genetic makeup. Literally, 2 brothers could be absolutely, completely, 100% not related to eachother (genetically speaking). Of course the odds of this happening is beyond ludicrous, just from the shear amount of data involved in a DNA sequence. It would be like 2 people constantly flipping coins for a million years, and everytime they came up opposite. That's not gonna happen- but it's possible.
> 
> And if we go back to skeletalfrog's paper, it's quite clear that we know less about our beloved pacmans then we think. It states multiple times that there are 2n specimens of ornates as well as 8n's. Therefore, a 2n ornate would be able to breed with a 2n cranwell, but a 2n ornate would not be able to breed with an 8n ornate.
> 
> The term "ornate" may be simple symantics.


If that were the case then why do all Fantacy frogs have traits from both parents. They do not look like one or the other alone, but like both. While Samurai Pacman frogs look only like Cranwellies. There would still be a sign from both parents somewhere in their appearence which there is not. It would be impossible to mix breed so many and never have atleast a few Samurais that looked. Like an Ornate or that took on traits from both parents. Its not possible to have that many sucessful breedings that only turned up with only Cranwelli appearance alone. Its highly unlikely.

I believe more fresh research needs to be done.

----------


## pyxieBob

yes exactly. In readable terms that aren't boring and total conjecture... Samurai blues are not mixed with anything. Doesn't mean at all the something fishy wasn't done to make them blue but they are pure 100% Crans. Griff is exactly right abt the fact of it not being possible to never show traits of the other half of its genealogy. 


---
I am here: http://tapatalk.com/map.php?peqh4r

----------


## cali

Simple-

You have 2 people trapped inside of you (one set from mom, one set from dad)
Both of your parents had 2 people trapped inside of each of them (one from each of their parents)
Etc etc etc....

That means there was 4 possible traits for everything that makes you when your parents reproduced, but only 2 made it into your DNA- wich means that 2 have nothing to do with your genetic makeup and where lost (when it comes to your DNA structure). Just because one of your parents had a trait doesn't mean that you have it anywhere.

google eye color passive/recessive for a good example.


Selective breeding.
Passive and Recessive genes.

Prime example- 
ALL dog breeds that we keep as pets are descended from wolves.
However, If I breed 2 rottweilers, the pups will be rottweilers, not poodles- even though both breeds ultimately came from the same ancestors- wich looked like neither 10,000 years ago.

And yes it is completely possible to ditch a trait from a parent.

----------


## pyxieBob

Ya Rotts were wolves just as poodles were ,correct. this was 1,000s and 1,000's of years ago. blue pacmans were produced TEN YEARS AGO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! your dog theory does not apply here. not even close. they are not crossed w Ornates or any other type. The blue seafoam color was maintained through HEREDITARY FIXATION. Yusuke is easy going and easy to find. ask him all abt it. He may not be willing to give up the secret that made them and I don't blame him. but he's not lying abt them being Cranwellis. 


---
I am here: http://tapatalk.com/map.php?cb2osh

----------


## Colleen/Jerrod

> Simple-
> 
> You have 2 people trapped inside of you (one set from mom, one set from dad)
> Both of your parents had 2 people trapped inside of each of them (one from each of their parents)
> Etc etc etc....
> 
> That means there was 4 possible traits for everything that makes you when your parents reproduced, but only 2 made it into your DNA- wich means that 2 have nothing to do with your genetic makeup and where lost (when it comes to your DNA structure). Just because one of your parents had a trait doesn't mean that you have it anywhere.
> 
> google eye color passive/recessive for a good example.
> ...


What about the people heterochromatia. Where one eye is blue and the other brown? Also the traits in the DNA would not be lost they would still be there otherwise grandchildren would not take on the appearance of the grandparents or relatives further back. Eventually both sides would appear and even those thaught lost would eventually show back up. DNA just doesn't disappear through breeding. Plus I don't think Samurai Japan has been doing it long enough for those traits to be gone since it would literally take several hundred years to become so recessive tthat it doesn't show through.

----------


## pyxieBob

exactly Griff. I'm sorry I was laughing so hard at the idea that someone actually tried to convince someone else that traits can just vanish. they will never leave. plain and simple. A Tiger Muskie is a fish. a hybrid between a Northern Pike and a Muskie. the offspring carry lots of traits by both parents every single time.  pointless for me to bring up since Griff already stated that there is no such thing as Fantasy that only looks like the Cramwelli or the Cornuta. never happens never will. 


---
I am here: http://tapatalk.com/map.php?psisxz

----------


## cali

OMG really?!?!
WOW.

This is biology 101

My father has brown eyes.
My mother has blue eyes.
I have blue eyes.

Ergo- I DO NOT CARRY A VIABLE GENE FOR BROWN EYES. PERIOD.

Ditched my fathers trait after 1 (one) generation.

This is not conjecture.
This is not theory.

This is simple genetics.

----------


## pyxieBob

no you did not ditch that trait. that's funny. 


---
I am here: http://tapatalk.com/map.php?haclwe

----------


## pyxieBob

frog one IS albino, frog 2 is brown. all babies are brown because albino is recessive. ERGO all babies are heterozygous for albino. they do not display this trait but they 100% carry it. pretty simple. so if they breed to a brown frog who also carries albinism some babies will be albino. it's exactly he same with my brother and his wife both have brown eyes BOTH of their children have BLUE. 


---
I am here: http://tapatalk.com/map.php?sregvy

----------


## cali

Thats because your brother has a brown eye gene (Dominant) and either a blue or green gene (Both recessive) OR brown and a damaged (Any color)
Your brother's wife has a brown eye gene (Dominant) and either a blue or green gene (Both recessive) OR Brown and a damaged (Any color)

Both children have one of the following- either Blue x Blue, OR Blue x Green (Blue is dominant over green) OR Blue x damaged brown (where the recessive gene takes precedence over a normally dominant damaged gene)

NEITHER OF THOSE CHILDREN CAN PRODUCE A BROWN EYED CHILD. PERIOD.

----------


## cali

Just as 2 albinos can NEVER produce a normal phase. They only carry recessive genes.

----------


## pyxieBob

ya exactly, they STILL CARRY THE TRAIT


---
I am here: http://tapatalk.com/map.php?tbpcgq

----------


## pyxieBob

none of which matters because your orig point was that blue sams are a cross that never show the other parental traits. that never happens Cali.  


---
I am here: http://tapatalk.com/map.php?bgqyjx

----------


## pyxieBob

the blue eye and albino thing is also not relative. We aren't just talking abt color with these frogs. u said every single trait of one of the parents can vanish. nose shape eye shape hight ect. that is not true. I'm done responding to your posts or even reading your none sense 


---
I am here: http://tapatalk.com/map.php?rjpagk

----------


## cali

> ya exactly, they STILL CARRY THE TRAIT


No, They don't.



I'm normally a level headed person, but this is like talking to a brick wall. I honestly don't know if you're this dense or just playing at this point.

If your posts are serious, then you obviously don't understand the mechanics of genetics. Either way, I give up on this thread until someone else participates.

----------


## pyxieBob

if you mapped the DNA you would see the brown in the map. Just because 2 albinos don't make browns Dsnt mean its not in the DNA. pretty simple. also incase I forgot Samurai Blue are not Cranwelli X. they aren't hybrids . 


---
I am here: http://tapatalk.com/map.php?fydx2o

----------


## pyxieBob

how do you claim to be an expert when you use a made up word in the title of this thread?


---
I am here: http://tapatalk.com/map.php?3y5fua

----------


## cali

LMAO, that's just another point lost to you. Look up the definition. 
If you don't understand the joke, I'll explain it to you, v e r y  s l o w l y  o f  c o u r s e.

And there is no brown in the DNA. Like I said, you don't understand genetics.

----------


## pyxieBob

you remind of this movie I saw... it wasn't suppose to be funny but I laughed the entire time. have you heard of Punnett Squares? yes brown is still in the traits they carry. not the traits they pass. 


---
I am here: http://tapatalk.com/map.php?zqf3nj

----------


## pyxieBob

don't forget genius, the whole reason we are arguing is because you were trying to convince everyone that a frog can be a hybrid an never show one single trait of one of the specieS involved in making that hybrid. that is classsssic. 


---
I am here: http://tapatalk.com/map.php?4xqfqe

----------


## cali

> don't forget genius, the whole reason we are arguing is because you were trying to convince everyone that a frog can be a hybrid an never show one single trait of one of the specieS involved in making that hybrid. that is classsssic.



Yep- that is all correct.

#1 I am a genius.

#2 If the all genes of animal A are dominant (wich is implausible, but hypothetically possible) over all the genes in animal B, then offspring C would only show characteristics of parent A, nothing of parent B.
     Moreover- animal C could be line bred (in theory) for multiple generations, with an eventual outcome of all recessive genetic material of parent B being removed and offspring X ultimately being genetically identical to original parent A, without a trace of parent B. Or animal C could be line bred for multiple generations, with an eventual outcome of all dominant genetic material of parent A being removed and offspring Y ultimately being genetically identical to original parent B, without a trace of parent A.

All of my theories and facts are sound- I stand by everything I've said.

Quote me- PROVE any of it is wrong.

----------


## SkeletalFrog

> if you mapped the DNA you would see the brown in the map. Just because 2 albinos don't make browns Dsnt mean its not in the DNA. pretty simple. also incase I forgot Samurai Blue are not Cranwelli X. they aren't hybrids .


The problem here is terminology, using vague words like "in the DNA".

There's genes and alleles.  Genes are locations in the DNA which, when processed by the cell, produce proteins.  Alleles are versions of the gene, like versions of a computer program.  All cranwellis have two genes for melanin (one from the mother, one from the father).  In pure, wild frogs, most of them have two function genes, so you get normal melanin and normal colors.  If a frog has two copies, but one is broken, they can still make good melanin off the good gene.  But in an albino frog, both copies are broken, so no melanin gets made.  Any sperm or eggs can only get broken copies of the gene, and thus two albinos can never produce a normal offspring.  The only way to get back to normal frogs is to breed the albino with a frog that has working copies of the gene.

It's like everyone on the forum has two coins.  Some have two gold coins, some two lead coins, and some one of each.  You can say everyone has coins (genes), but they have different types (alleles).  And if you have two lead coins, you cannot give someone a gold coin, because you just don't have it.



As far a hybrid traits, it's more complex - there's lots of stuff going on that's WAY beyond simple dominant/recessive alleles, sometimes even beyond the actual code of the DNA itself (DNA methylation, chromatin binding sites, epigenetic phenomena).  Certain traits from one parent may always show up in a hybrid, or never show up.  Sometimes you'll even get traits that aren't present in EITHER parent, simply because you're mixing two very different genomes, like mixing two paints into a complex swirl with patterns and shades not present in either.  And given that your typical vertebrate has somewhere around 20,000+ genes, it gets very complex very rapidly.  However, it's unlikely that a hybrid would be indistinguishable from the parent species, unless the species are extremely close (such as some stickleback fish species which have been separate for only a few thousand years).


As far as Ceratophrys taxonomy, yes, they probably do need to be revised, but so do just about every other group of organisms, and the sad truth is that there simply isn't enough scientific funding to do everything that needs to be done.  I'm not saying that the chromosome confirgurations and/or hybridization states prove this or that, but rather the opposite - that I'm extremely wary of basing too much on those measures, as they've proven fallible before.

----------


## pyxieBob

> Yep- that is all correct.
> 
> #1 I am a genius.
> 
> #2 If the all genes of animal A are dominant (wich is implausible, but hypothetically possible) over all the genes in animal B, then offspring C would only show characteristics of parent A, nothing of parent B.
>      Moreover- animal C could be line bred (in theory) for multiple generations, with an eventual outcome of all recessive genetic material of parent B being removed and offspring X ultimately being genetically identical to original parent A, without a trace of parent B. Or animal C could be line bred for multiple generations, with an eventual outcome of all dominant genetic material of parent A being removed and offspring Y ultimately being genetically identical to original parent B, without a trace of parent A.
> 
> All of my theories and facts are sound- I stand by everything I've said.
> 
> Quote me- PROVE any of it is wrong.


Samuari Blues are not hybrids  :Smile:  


---
I am here: http://tapatalk.com/map.php?gutawo

----------


## pyxieBob

Cali did you read Skeletals response? read that you might actually learn something  :Smile:  actually no you would probably think your Wile E. Cyotote still... Man I wish they still made cartoons like that. 


---
I am here: http://tapatalk.com/map.php?rack30

----------


## cali

> Cali did you read Skeletals response? read that you might actually learn something  actually no you would probably think your Wile E. Cyotote still... Man I wish they still made cartoons like that.


I used simplified definitions for YOUR benefit, I have extensive knowledge of genetics. 

Have you actually READ my posts, or did you just scan through them?

I have yet to see anything I've said PROVEN wrong.

Simply stating that "samurais are not hybrids" proves nothing. Has anyone seen the F0's that were used in the initial breeding? No, I didn't think so.

Apparently the scientific community cannot even agree on the definition of "Ornata". Going back to skeletalfrog's paper- both 2n and 8n specimens of "ornates" have been catalogged- wich is odd- and impossible- to have 2 seperate genetic architectures within a species.

----------


## Colleen/Jerrod

There is no sence in argueing over theories. As a theory is basically just as a hypothesis is. A highly educated guess and yet still a guess. Theory prooves neither right nor wrong and we can argue and speculate and even post paperwork of documentation that is by now completely outdated and still get nowhere. We ourselves are at a standstill. Until the actual breeder clearifies any of this we will just be arguing a point that in the end still results with the same answer. We don't know.

I guess that you are a believer in evolution or science above all else. Perhaps there is more about this world and its creatures that far surpasses our ability to comprehend. Matters such as these will always have theories, but nobody really knows. Without proof despite however many documents on geneology you post up it will not matter. All is outdated and basically needs to be washed clean and restarted a new.

I am no longer going to post on this thread. Just adding food for thaught. I may spectate but that's all.

PS. I'm not attacking your. Beliefs in any way. I respect everyones opinion and what they believe in.

----------


## pyxieBob

I would like to say that it is a FACT that blue Samurais are Cranwellis. that's not a theory. 


---
I am here: http://tapatalk.com/map.php?xn04re

----------


## pyxieBob

also not a theory that these two Samurais are AWESOME 


---
I am here: http://tapatalk.com/map.php?nkoebt

----------


## cali

By no means am I inferring that Yusuke is lying.

But my points are still valid-

#1-  All business's protect their investments.

#2-  Since the genus appears to be in flux, any label is suspect. How many posts are there on this site alone saying "I found this ornate at petco, got a good deal because they were calling it a cranwell" ?

#3-  Even the most respected importer/breeder has no chance. Is an 8n "classic Ornate" being distributed, or is it a 2n "pseudo-Ornate" ? Was there a 2n "Ornate" that lacked eye spots, got drop-shipped to japan labelled as a cranwell, and was used in Yusuke's original breeding pool? Is this 2n ornate a yet-to-be-identified species or sub, that's capable of or responsible for these morphs?

#4-  If a wild born crossbreed, whose appearance was that of a cranwell, but carried genetic material from another species, was caught and imported- would offspring be correctly labelled "Cranwell"?

2 days ago-




> ...might have come across a random specimen with a one-of-a-kind allele that their entire line of exotic morphs are derived from. But considering how many other breeders there are, in many different countrys, with thousands of eggs in a single clutch- shouldn't someone else have come across a variant without using a breeder from japan?


There's always the possibility that Yusuke found a random allele in a cranwell (as I stated in the beginning).
There's always the possibility that hormone therapy was used.
There's always the possibility that what Yusuke "thought" was a cranwell in his original group was actually an unknown/undefined/ WC or CB variant/species/sub-species.

If scientists are in the field, dissecting specimens and using electron microscopes to define chromosome structure- and STILL unsure of proper categorization- THEN HOW CAN ANYBODY SAY WITH 100% CERTAINTY THAT WHAT THEY HAVE IS A "CERATOPHRYS XXXXX" ?


I have stated many things in this thread, if you're going to say that I'm mistaken, then actually read what I've written without taking things out of context or ignoring what I've said in a previous post.

If I state "My great, great, great grandfather wrote the star-spangled banner"- does that mean it's true? Even if I was honestly under the impression that it is 100% factual, does that make it a fact?

Again- I have yet to see anything proving ANY of my theorems or statements wrong.

----------


## cali

And again- no offense intended to Yusuke- but from a scientific stand point, saying that the samurai's are cranwell's simply because "he says so" is like deciding the outcome of a murder trial by only asking the defendant if he did it.

----------


## pyxieBob

I have yet to actually care for real abt anything in this thread other than Samurai blues are just Cranwellis. Glad I own 2 of them. 


---
I am here: http://tapatalk.com/map.php?euueqx

----------


## cali

Those are actually 2 very gorgeous frogs- I've wanted a blue since I first saw them. But even as I type this my mind wanders and wonders where/why/how...

----------


## pyxieBob

> Those are actually 2 very gorgeous frogs- I've wanted a blue since I first saw them. But even as I type this my mind wanders and wonders where/why/how...


mine does too honestly, there is some secret to them. keep. look out for 
my next drawing, I think you will like it honestly 


---
I am here: http://tapatalk.com/map.php?auugkx

----------


## pansie

I just wanted to thank you guys for this convo! I know nothing about genes and all that and i found this discussion very thought-provoking! <3

----------


## SkeletalFrog

> I have yet to see anything I've said PROVEN wrong.


That's not how science works.  You can't prove a negative - "there are no white ravens" - except under extremely specific and limited circumstances.

Yes, you have raised potential issues, but that's all they are, potential.  Acting as if they're definitive is highly premature.  Yes, X or Y or Z could have happened, but without actual data supporting those claims, they're just hypotheses, and science is built on the corpses of dead hypotheses.






> Simply stating that "samurais are not hybrids" proves nothing. Has anyone seen the F0's that were used in the initial breeding? No, I didn't think so.


Similarly, stating that they are, or could be, also proves nothing.

Just because there are two possibilities does not mean those two possibilities are equally likely.  Given that your hypothesis would require the acquisition of ornata from a single location (which may or may not even exist anymore, thanks to deforestation), breeding it, concealing the offspring's nature, *and* offspring that look nothing like one of the parents, while the alternative simply requires that the breeder happened upon a rare genetic mutation (which happens all the time), it's much more likely that "samurai" pacs are simply a mutation.

Consider Bigfoot.  What's more likely, that an unknown anthropoid evolved in or migrated to the US leaving no fossil record or evidence for several hundred thousand years in spite of massively growing human populations, or that every so often someone in a gorilla suit plays a hoax?

Given Occam's razor, Bayseian priors, and general logic, the simpler explanations should be preferred until clear evidence of alternatives is found.




> Apparently the scientific community cannot even agree on the definition of "Ornata". Going back to skeletalfrog's paper- both 2n and 8n specimens of "ornates" have been catalogged- wich is odd- and impossible- to have 2 seperate genetic architectures within a species.


While the existence of a 2n ornata population seems odd, there are other possibilities, such as that the 2n specimens were mis-identified cranwelli (especially likely if they were tadpoles) or that something went wrong with the karyotyping.  Plus, there's the issue of which the type specimen is - if the type specimen is 8n, then the 8n individuals retain the ornata name, and the 2n population gets a new name.

Remember "species" are only real in a vague and temporary sense - it's an artificial box we construct for human convenience.  It's more real than any other taxonomic level, yes, but life is considerabl more complex than the ICZN code can cope with, or ever will.




> There is no sence in argueing over theories. As a theory is basically just as a hypothesis is. A highly educated guess and yet still a guess. Theory prooves neither right nor wrong and we can argue and speculate and even post paperwork of documentation that is by now completely outdated and still get nowhere.


Not actually.  A hypothesis is an educated guess, an idea based on current knowledge.  A theory is a hypothesis that has been tested, passed, and now has data supporting it.

That's the key, data.

----------


## Colleen/Jerrod

> That's not how science works.  You can't prove a negative - "there are no white ravens" - except under extremely specific and limited circumstances.
> 
> Yes, you have raised potential issues, but that's all they are, potential.  Acting as if they're definitive is highly premature.  Yes, X or Y or Z could have happened, but without actual data supporting those claims, they're just hypotheses, and science is built on the corpses of dead hypotheses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Similarly, stating that they are, or could be, also proves nothing.
> ...


Sorry, poor wording on my part. I should have said that a Theory starts as a hypothesis, but theory isn't always correct even though evidence is produced. Sometimes I think the scientific community goes fishing for proof so much that they will use any means necissary to prove their theory to be right. Kind of like the theory of evolution(which Darwin on his death bed claimed was false). If this were true than why are there no known missing links in fossile evidence? I believe because there isn't a missing link. It just didn't take place as they claim it did. We did not evolve from apes even though we are closely related you do not still see full grown men coming out of the jungle that just evolved. I know they have several fossilized skuls of Neanderthals, but I don't actually think they were men or a missing link, but just another type of ape that had existed. And became extinct.

Big Bang Theory. Cannot truely be tested because amn cannot construct a large enough piece of matter and then blow it up in a are devoid of air/gravity etc and create a universe or galaxy. Just a guess to me.

To completely change your DNA and or complete body structure is pretty far fetched. Especially with Dinsaurs being supposedly closely related to birds or them stating that birds evolved from them. A cold blooded reptile no matter how many years pass will not become a warm blooded bird. It would not happen. (Sorry just venting a little). To me despite the definition of the word "Theory" defined as having proven data from testing to back it up in my opinion is still a guess. Some theories cannot actually be tested like the 2 I've mentioned. You can not simulate the events oramount of time that was supposed to have taken place due to size of what pieces of matter that were involved and creatures that no longer exist.



Sorry if its a little off topic. Just explaining why I said Theory is just a guess. I find this all facinating, but hard to swallow if you know what I mean :Smile: .not all theories have all substantial evidence to back them, but most do.

----------


## Martin

> Sorry, poor wording on my part. I should have said that a Theory starts as a hypothesis, but theory isn't always correct even though evidence is produced. Sometimes I think the scientific community goes fishing for proof so much that they will use any means necissary to prove their theory to be right. Kind of like the theory of evolution(which Darwin on his death bed claimed was false). If this were true than why are there no known missing links in fossile evidence? I believe because there isn't a missing link. It just didn't take place as they claim it did. We did not evolve from apes even though we are closely related you do not still see full grown men coming out of the jungle that just evolved. I know they have several fossilized skuls of Neanderthals, but I don't actually think they were men or a missing link, but just another type of ape that had existed. And became extinct.
> 
> Big Bang Theory. Cannot truely be tested because amn cannot construct a large enough piece of matter and then blow it up in a are devoid of air/gravity etc and create a universe or galaxy. Just a guess to me.
> 
> To completely change your DNA and or complete body structure is pretty far fetched. Especially with Dinsaurs being supposedly closely related to birds or them stating that birds evolved from them. A cold blooded reptile no matter how many years pass will not become a warm blooded bird. It would not happen. (Sorry just venting a little). To me despite the definition of the word "Theory" defined as having proven data from testing to back it up in my opinion is still a guess. Some theories cannot actually be tested like the 2 I've mentioned. You can not simulate the events oramount of time that was supposed to have taken place due to size of what pieces of matter that were involved and creatures that no longer exist.
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry if its a little off topic. Just explaining why I said Theory is just a guess. I find this all facinating, but hard to swallow if you know what I mean.not all theories have all substantial evidence to back them, but most do.


Oh wow...

----------


## SkeletalFrog

> Kind of like the theory of evolution(which Darwin on his death bed claimed was false).


Actually, this is a myth.  The person who claimed it did not actually visit Darwin on his deathbed, and never even met him.  It's an urban legend like "Cops undercover have to tell you they're a cop if asked".




> If this were true than why are there no known missing links in fossile evidence? I believe because there isn't a missing link. It just didn't take place as they claim it did. We did not evolve from apes even though we are closely related you do not still see full grown men coming out of the jungle that just evolved. I know they have several fossilized skuls of Neanderthals, but I don't actually think they were men or a missing link, but just another type of ape that had existed. And became extinct.


We have tons of missing links, showing a complete gradual transition from modern man all the way back to prosimians.  Neanderthals were actually the same species as us, just a different subspecies, and if properly groomed could walk by you on the street without you noticing.




> Big Bang Theory. Cannot truely be tested because amn cannot construct a large enough piece of matter and then blow it up in a are devoid of air/gravity etc and create a universe or galaxy. Just a guess to me.


You can test things without directly observing them (either because they're in the past, or because they're subatomic, etc).  The explosion of the Big Bang can still be observed, albeit now very old and nowhere near as intense, as the comsic microwave background.  We can even reconstruct unevenness in the original explosion based on irregularities in the cosmic microwave background.




> To completely change your DNA and or complete body structure is pretty far fetched. Especially with Dinosaurs being supposedly closely related to birds or them stating that birds evolved from them. A cold blooded reptile no matter how many years pass will not become a warm blooded bird. It would not happen. (Sorry just venting a little).


Actually, that's easy.  We can actually cause a Xenopus tadpole to show the gut morphology or a Budgets tadpole and vice versa, just by selectively inhibiting or enhancing certain genes.  And this isn't unusual, it's the norm.

Think of it like building a house.  My apartment and Bill Gates' home are very similar - made of wood, metal, glass, plastic, paint, etc.  The difference isn't so much the components, but how they're arranged and in what quantities.  Look into Evo-Devo (evolutionary developmental biology), it's got some amazing new advances in the evolution of gross morphological traits.

Endothermy is actually pretty easy, just a few tweaks to the mitochondria.  You can turn scales into feathers with just a few shifts in gene expression patterns.




> To me despite the definition of the word "Theory" defined as having proven data from testing to back it up in my opinion is still a guess. Some theories cannot actually be tested like the 2 I've mentioned. You can not simulate the events oramount of time that was supposed to have taken place due to size of what pieces of matter that were involved and creatures that no longer exist.


Testing evolution is part of my thesis.  It's surprisingly easy.  In fact, the biggest difficulty in many biological systems is trying to get the system *not* to evolve while you're in the middle of studying it.

----------


## pyxieBob

evolution is a proven fact every DAY. Darwin never said something so incredibly stupid . 


---
I am here: http://tapatalk.com/map.php?ashhrf

----------


## Colleen/Jerrod

> Actually, this is a myth.  The person who claimed it did not actually visit Darwin on his deathbed, and never even met him.  It's an urban legend like "Cops undercover have to tell you they're a cop if asked".
> 
> 
> 
> We have tons of missing links, showing a complete gradual transition from modern man all the way back to prosimians.  Neanderthals were actually the same species as us, just a different subspecies, and if properly groomed could walk by you on the street without you noticing.
> 
> 
> 
> You can test things without directly observing them (either because they're in the past, or because they're subatomic, etc).  The explosion of the Big Bang can still be observed, albeit now very old and nowhere near as intense, as the comsic microwave background.  We can even reconstruct unevenness in the original explosion based on irregularities in the cosmic microwave background.
> ...


Hmmm very good points. I still don't believe all is as they say.

You're right about the myth. Just learned this. There is still so much more that I think that we will never fully understand. And to change parts of DNA ourselves causing a change isn't nature doing it by itself. Scales and feathers being made up of the same material doesn't really exlpain the change in structure by means of us changing so.ething causeing mutation not evolution. In that case how come there is no. Fossile evidence of the much larger dinosaurs having feathers and why they were not covered with them instead of a headress like the Utah Raptor. Some with and some without.

If we alter the DNA to cause a change its unatural so therfore I see it as we are causing a mutation rather than an actual evolutionary change. The only true evolution I believe is adaptation which doent usually involve a change in biological makeup or anatomy. Just the abilituy to cope and thrive in less than ideal conditions or worse.

I see now what you're saying though. I still think the Big Bang Theory is a bunch of nonsence :Wink: .

----------


## Martin

> Hmmm very good points. I still don't believe all is as they say.
> 
> You're right about the myth. Just learned this. There is still so much more that I think that we will never fully understand. And to change parts of DNA ourselves causing a change isn't nature doing it by itself. Scales and feathers being made up of the same material doesn't really exlpain the change in structure by means of us changing so.ething causeing mutation not evolution. In that case how come there is no. Fossile evidence of the much larger dinosaurs having feathers and why they were not covered with them instead of a headress like the Utah Raptor. Some with and some without.
> 
> If we alter the DNA to cause a change its unatural so therfore I see it as we are causing a mutation rather than an actual evolutionary change. The only true evolution I believe is adaptation which doent usually involve a change in biological makeup or anatomy. Just the abilituy to cope and thrive in less than ideal conditions or worse.
> 
> I see now what you're saying though. I still think the Big Bang Theory is a bunch of nonsence.


Seriously? It really isn't matter of what you (or me, or anyone else) beleive or not, it's a matter of what is possible and isn't. You just agreed that life can evolved, and then said that it "just don't" (for some mysterious reason).

All in all, there isn't much to discuss in this particular matter (which is pretty OT already). Everything that needs to be said have been said by Skeletalfrog already, and he have every scientific evidence there is to support it.

Also, I won't write anymore after this single post, I just couldn't hold back. Supprised to see some of the statements here in a forum like this, for some reason I thought people in this hobby was past that.

----------


## Colleen/Jerrod

> Seriously? It really isn't matter of what you (or me, or anyone else) beleive or not, it's a matter of what is possible and isn't. You just agreed that life can evolved, and then said that it "just don't" (for some mysterious reason).
> 
> All in all, there isn't much to discuss in this particular matter (which is pretty OT already). Everything that needs to be said have been said by Skeletalfrog already, and he have every scientific evidence there is to support it.
> 
> Also, I won't write anymore after this single post, I just couldn't hold back. Supprised to see some of the statements here in a forum like this, for some reason I thought people in this hobby was past that.


Nevermind. I'm not pushing anything and I'm pretty open to any discussion and or opinion out there. Skeletal has evidence and has stated that without the need for you to interject on anything I've said. Skeletal is by far more intelligent than I and I will not debate that. I feel that evolution while documented and many studies have been done on isn't by any means fully defined. I don't think all creatufes came from a single cell that merged with another or that just all of a sudden one cell just for unknown reasons desided to replicate until jellyfish or actual fish were made.

Nowhere am I trying to argue or anything. Your opinion is welcome as well Martin which I'm surprised that you haven't started earlier like you usually do. If you want to jump in just to bash me and try and make a fool of me by all mean go ahead, but in truth it won't be me that is foolish.

Anyway I am not completely saying that it isn't possible I just haven't seen the evidence with my own 2 eyes. Seeing is believing.

----------


## SkeletalFrog

> And to change parts of DNA ourselves causing a change isn't nature doing it by itself. Scales and feathers being made up of the same material doesn't really exlpain the change in structure by means of us changing so.ething causeing mutation not evolution.


Why would it be different?  It doesn't matter if an albino appears via natural breeding or is created via genetic engineering, it's still an albino, and still has the albino allele.  Indeed, if anything, Nature is superior to us at creating mutations, as our methods are regrettably rather crude still, and does so with great regularity.  Indeed, statistically, every one of us has 10 *new* mutations, not present in either parent, that affect protein coding (and hundreds that are "silent").




> In that case how come there is no. Fossile evidence of the much larger dinosaurs having feathers and why they were not covered with them instead of a headress like the Utah Raptor. Some with and some without.


The "feather headress" is Hollywood and art, not science - we have evidence of full, bird-style wing feathers on the arms of Velociraptor and other species, and current evidence suggests that they were fully feathered.

As for the larger ones, there are multiple issues.  First and foremost is preservation - feathers preserve very rarely, and there's only a few deposits in the world of high enough quality to retain evidence of them.  It's not that other things didn't have feathers, just that the coarse sediment prevented fine details from being preserved.  Aside from that, there's the issue of size - feathers may provide valuable insulation for a small animal, but cause a large one to overheat, so large dinosaurs may have lost them, much like why elephants and rhinos are mostly bald.  Finally, there's relationships - only one group of dinosaurs, the maniraptorans (including raptors, T. rex, and therizinosaurs), had what we could recognize as feathers.  Others, including other predatory dinosaurs like Allosaurus and Spinosaurus, diverged before feathers evolved.




> If we alter the DNA to cause a change its unatural so therfore I see it as we are causing a mutation rather than an actual evolutionary change. The only true evolution I believe is adaptation which doent usually involve a change in biological makeup or anatomy. Just the abilituy to cope and thrive in less than ideal conditions or worse.


Actually, adaptation is most often a change in anatomy or biochemistry.  Look at the diversity in frog shapes - hoppers, walkers, jumpers, burrowers, swimmers, all with bodies adapted to their mode of locomotion.  And no piddly stuff - doubling or halving of leg muscle mass, significant differences in muscle properties, springy tendons.


An excellent primer for this is actually the product of an old newsgroup, talk.origins.  Their overall FAQ is here: Frequently Asked Questions About Creationism and Evolution" with links to other FAQs about particular issues (including some you're raised).  This other one here Introduction to Evolutionary Biology is a good introduction to evolution, its mechanics, common misconceptions, modern data, etc.

I will warn you that it's a bit dry and tends towards the "wall of text" style of presentation, but it's extremely useful, and should answer most of your questions quite thoroughly.

----------

GrifTheGreat

----------


## Colleen/Jerrod

> Why would it be different?  It doesn't matter if an albino appears via natural breeding or is created via genetic engineering, it's still an albino, and still has the albino allele.  Indeed, if anything, Nature is superior to us at creating mutations, as our methods are regrettably rather crude still, and does so with great regularity.  Indeed, statistically, every one of us has 10 *new* mutations, not present in either parent, that affect protein coding (and hundreds that are "silent").
> 
> 
> 
> The "feather headress" is Hollywood and art, not science - we have evidence of full, bird-style wing feathers on the arms of Velociraptor and other species, and current evidence suggests that they were fully feathered.
> 
> As for the larger ones, there are multiple issues.  First and foremost is preservation - feathers preserve very rarely, and there's only a few deposits in the world of high enough quality to retain evidence of them.  It's not that other things didn't have feathers, just that the coarse sediment prevented fine details from being preserved.  Aside from that, there's the issue of size - feathers may provide valuable insulation for a small animal, but cause a large one to overheat, so large dinosaurs may have lost them, much like why elephants and rhinos are mostly bald.  Finally, there's relationships - only one group of dinosaurs, the maniraptorans (including raptors, T. rex, and therizinosaurs), had what we could recognize as feathers.  Others, including other predatory dinosaurs like Allosaurus and Spinosaurus, diverged before feathers evolved.
> 
> 
> ...


Ill give it a look. I'm not completely closed on the idea. I've always wandered if there we're more to what they claim. Like you said about the holly wood bull. I wasn't referring to that ****. I usually watch documentories on dinosaurs and other such prehistoric creatures and I have yet to see one that said that their were large Raptors covered entirely with feathers. Just the headress and yes some on their arms, but not the whole body. The closest to this that I know of is the Archeoptorix or however you spell its name, but it was small. Chicken sized right?

Maybe I need to look over some more documents on Evolution. I can honestly say that my knowledge on this subject has been greatly decreased from not keeping up with it over the years. Used to read a lot about it Dinos, but a lot of archeologists opinions differ and so its hard to say who is right and who is wrong. You've got my attension though.

----------


## Colleen/Jerrod

Ok this makes more sence now. Thanks for the link Skeletal. This is different from the Evolution I'm used to. It actually states that ist a change in the gene pool rather than just apearing out of nowhere. It basically states that there already has to bemore than just one of a creature to cause an evolutionary event to take place within that group of creatures braught on by some sort of event. Like with the moths landing on the soot covered Berch trees and thus not being eaten by birds because of camoflage and yet the bright colored ones are eaten so more dark colored moth were allowed to breed. Natural selection being a main part of that evolutionary event. Also with the ones with tails that are bright, but mimic a poisonous moth and the dark without tails being able to hide and yet they are from the same type of moth. It isn't that dry of a read. I've read worse believe me.

----------


## SkeletalFrog

> Ill give it a look. I'm not completely closed on the idea. I've always wandered if there we're more to what they claim. Like you said about the holly wood bull. I wasn't referring to that ****. I usually watch documentories on dinosaurs and other such prehistoric creatures and I have yet to see one that said that their were large Raptors covered entirely with feathers. Just the headress and yes some on their arms, but not the whole body. The closest to this that I know of is the Archeoptorix or however you spell its name, but it was small. Chicken sized right?


Sadly, many of those documentaries are every bit as bad as Hollywood.  Multiple times, the two paleontologists in our department have ranted at great length throughout lunch about wild inaccuracies presented as fact even on "respectable" TV documentary channels like Discovery.  I even know of one person who threatened to sue them after they edited his words to make it sound like he was saying the exact opposite of the actual data (the channel backed down).




> Ok this makes more sence now. Thanks for the link Skeletal. This is different from the Evolution I'm used to. It actually states that ist a change in the gene pool rather than just apearing out of nowhere. It basically states that there already has to bemore than just one of a creature to cause an evolutionary event to take place within that group of creatures braught on by some sort of event. Like with the moths landing on the soot covered Berch trees and thus not being eaten by birds because of camoflage and yet the bright colored ones are eaten so more dark colored moth were allowed to breed. Natural selection being a main part of that evolutionary event. Also with the ones with tails that are bright, but mimic a poisonous moth and the dark without tails being able to hide and yet they are from the same type of moth. It isn't that dry of a read. I've read worse believe me.


Glad to help!  Let me know if you have any questions!

----------


## cali

Ummm.

I think my cat is flirting with my dog. I'll post pics of the kippies later....

----------


## Colleen/Jerrod

> Ummm.
> 
> I think my cat is flirting with my dog. I'll post pics of the kippies later....


I don't know Cali, that might be pushing it a little. Bit Lol!

----------


## SkeletalFrog

Talk about good timing:

Giant feathered dinosaur found in China was too big to fly | Science | The Guardian

Basically, we now have a fossil of a ~30 foot primitive tyrannosaur that was covered in feathers from head to toe.

----------


## Colleen/Jerrod

> Talk about good timing:
> 
> Giant feathered dinosaur found in China was too big to fly | Science | The Guardian
> 
> Basically, we now have a fossil of a ~30 foot primitive tyrannosaur that was covered in feathers from head to toe.


Wow that is good timing.  There is no way this could be a coincidence :Wink:

----------


## cali

I saw that, haven't had a chance to read anything about it yet, but I instantly wondered if it was archaeopteryx's great, great grandaddy.

----------


## Colleen/Jerrod

> I saw that, haven't had a chance to read anything about it yet, but I instantly wondered if it was archaeopteryx's great, great grandaddy.


I read the article. Its. 9 Meters long.  And looks like T-Rex. Pretty interesting.

----------


## pyxieBob

are they sure it's not just a really big parakeet?  :Stick Out Tongue: 


---
I am here: http://tapatalk.com/map.php?gevqon

----------


## Colleen/Jerrod

> are they sure it's not just a really big parakeet? 
> 
> 
> ---
> I am here: http://tapatalk.com/map.php?gevqon


No, but it might be and Ostritch on Steroids. :Wink:

----------


## Namio

> Technically, it's always "species", both singular and plural, like "sheep" or "moose".
> 
> Also, the definition of "species" doesn't necessarily hinge on total incompatability.  Generally speaking, species do not interbreed, but there are numerous exceptions, including species which do interbreed to form "hybrid zones" in certain areas.  If they are isolated, this can be through numerous mechanisms, including incompatibilities that don't show up in captivity, such as slightly different breeding seasons, as well as infertile hybrids or even just hybrids that aren't as capable of survival in the wild as the parents.
> 
> An extreme example is actually a side-project I have with one of more genetics-oriented evolution faculty here, involving cross-genus hybrids (_Lampropeltis getula californiae X Elaphe obsoleta obsoleta_) which not only do just fine in captivity, but are fertile as well.  The two lineages have been separated for ~18 million years, yet still form fertile hybrids.


Just because two species are _capable_ of interbreeding does not make them the same species. Reproduction compatibility or capability are not the only deciding factors in terms of species definition. There are 500 species of cichlid fishes living in the (same) African Great Lake, all of which are _capable_ of producing viable offspring and yet they don't do it in nature. In coastal northern California (where I live), we have northern red-legged frog (_Rana aurora_) and California red-legged frog (_Rana aurora_) who were once considered as one single species but two subspecies until 2004 when Shaffer et al. did a phylogenetic study to show that they are in fact of separate lineages, despite in the overlap zone in Medocino County where the two species meet they do hybridize.

There are many definitions of "species" in the science world and most scientists cannot agree upon on one. That is because evolution is a continuous and dynamic process. What we call a "species" is quite arbitrary.

----------


## cali

> .....I always found this topic intriguing when I bred Lichanura Trivirgata and Labeotropheus Trewavasae/Fuelleborni.


Rock cichlids are a great example of the issues with the whole kingdom/phylum/etc etc. classification system.
A "species" can spend thousands of years genetically isolated from another group that's only 25 yards away- for the simple reason that the lake shore has a "gap" in rocky outcrops and no individual will cross said gap. And then there's a flood or drought or seismic activity that alters the terrain- and now these "species" are homogenized into 1 group.

Lake Malawi has recently had issues with water quality- sediment has clouded the water, making it difficult for some mbuna to differentiate "species" during mating. Does this mean that the crossbreeds/parents will now be labeled as a single species, since they naturally crossed, in the wild?

_Lichanura trivirgata arizonae
Lichanura trivirgata gracia
Lichanura trivirgata saslowi 
Lichanura trivirgata myriolepis
Lichanura trivirgata trivirgata
_
Some herpetologists believe that the rosy boa belongs in _Charina_ with the Rubber Boa, instead of _Lichanura_. _saslowi_ and _myriolepis_ are considered redundant by most- but depending on where you look, they may be listed as viable subs.

----------

