Life expectancy
- Thread starter Chris Anderson
- Start date
Kent67
Retired Moderator
Fair enough. I mentioned it because annual flu shots are a perfect example of things evolving (and quickly), and how we as humans cope with them. Most of the flu viruses that are making people sick this year will not be the same next year, and thus the shots change annually. Evolution in action.
Jeremy l
New Member
i wouldent call that evolution though, to me it seems more like adaptation. things can adapt to their environment thus animals humans viruses etc. but thats not evolution. evolution is where an animal virus or somthing changes from one thing to another.
thus humans and everything else here on earth evolving over millions of years from a bacteria. this in my opinion never happened.
now with that said through out thousands of years chameleons ( which was what this post was origionally about ) have adapted to their vast and different locations but they have never evolved. they have always been chameleons and their charastics have changed and adapted but never evolved their lives lengthend and shortened due to adaptations, not evolution
thus humans and everything else here on earth evolving over millions of years from a bacteria. this in my opinion never happened.
now with that said through out thousands of years chameleons ( which was what this post was origionally about ) have adapted to their vast and different locations but they have never evolved. they have always been chameleons and their charastics have changed and adapted but never evolved their lives lengthend and shortened due to adaptations, not evolution
Last edited:
Dave Legacy
New Member
I want to point out that a lot of species don't exceed their life expectancy due to captive care. Also, many simply perish within days, or weeks, after becoming captive. This is something you see a lot of in aquatic husbandry. Cephalopods live a very short life in the wild, typically 1.5 years, but it is often times cut shorter than that in captivity. Toxotes jaculatrix & T. chatareus (Archerfish) reach an adult length of 10-12" in the wild, yet it is rare to find a captive adult larger than 6" in length; Stunted growth is extremely common in captive aquatic organisms.
Removing predation completely isn't necessarily the best thing for the behavior of our captive animals either. For example, Chromis viridis (Blue-Green Chromis) lives in giant schools on the coral reef. Reef Keepers often try to replicate this same behavior at home in thier large reef tanks with little to no success. Rather than schooling the C. viridis take off on thier own and fend for themselves, but why? The answer is lack of predation. Schooling only occurs during feeding and for defense against predators, but if there are no predators present in thier controlled enviornment there will no longer be a need to school. C. viridis is a damsel, and aggressive by nature, so once they no longer need eachother for protection they simply kill eachother off.
Expertly performed captive life really only provides an animal with medical care, regular feeding, lack of predation, and the opportunity to educated ourselves through trial and error. Those individuals that cannot survive w/o medical care, regular feeding, and protection from predation, are meant to live shorter lives so that the surviving individuals, especially ones who've adapted, will reproduce and form a stronger species. Do you think that our captive-bred chameleons, if released into the wild, would out-compete generation after generation of wild chameleons?
I believe that keeping animals in captivity is ultimately extremely beneficial to the success of the wild populations now that humans are having such a dramatic effect on thier habitat and sometimes overcollecting/overfishing. However, my opinion is that wildlife does not need our contribution to survive, but they do need us to leave them alone to gain some stability so they can find a way to adapt and thrive; Evolution always finds a way.
Removing predation completely isn't necessarily the best thing for the behavior of our captive animals either. For example, Chromis viridis (Blue-Green Chromis) lives in giant schools on the coral reef. Reef Keepers often try to replicate this same behavior at home in thier large reef tanks with little to no success. Rather than schooling the C. viridis take off on thier own and fend for themselves, but why? The answer is lack of predation. Schooling only occurs during feeding and for defense against predators, but if there are no predators present in thier controlled enviornment there will no longer be a need to school. C. viridis is a damsel, and aggressive by nature, so once they no longer need eachother for protection they simply kill eachother off.
Expertly performed captive life really only provides an animal with medical care, regular feeding, lack of predation, and the opportunity to educated ourselves through trial and error. Those individuals that cannot survive w/o medical care, regular feeding, and protection from predation, are meant to live shorter lives so that the surviving individuals, especially ones who've adapted, will reproduce and form a stronger species. Do you think that our captive-bred chameleons, if released into the wild, would out-compete generation after generation of wild chameleons?
I believe that keeping animals in captivity is ultimately extremely beneficial to the success of the wild populations now that humans are having such a dramatic effect on thier habitat and sometimes overcollecting/overfishing. However, my opinion is that wildlife does not need our contribution to survive, but they do need us to leave them alone to gain some stability so they can find a way to adapt and thrive; Evolution always finds a way.
Dave Legacy
New Member
evo·lu·tion
Pronunciation:
\ˌe-və-ˈlü-shən, ˌē-və-\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
Latin evolution-, evolutio unrolling, from evolvere
Date:
1622
1: one of a set of prescribed movements
2.
a: a process of change in a certain direction : unfolding
b: the action or an instance of forming and giving something off : emission
c (1): a process of continuous change from a lower, simpler, or worse to a higher, more complex, or better state : growth (2): a process of gradual and relatively peaceful social, political, and economic advance
d: something evolved
3: the process of working out or developing
4.
a: the historical development of a biological group (as a race or species) : phylogeny
b: a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations; also : the process described by this theory
5: the extraction of a mathematical root
6: a process in which the whole universe is a progression of interrelated phenomena
studiocham
New Member
Sorry, Dave, I was not even touching on aquatics, my thoughts were on land animals, and particularly the charismatic residents of institutions. But it is always good to have more facets to consider. 
Certainly the aquatic, esp. reef, challenges in captivity require a whole other examination. On cephalopods, I'll have to defer to Suzanne, yourself, and others.
This is not something I've heard of in chameleons, but it does bring up an argument for enrichment that uses stressors for the good. You'll read of keepers putting feces of predators into prey animal enclosures, and vice versa, to give them the enrichment of the smells, and give their instincts a little dry run. It makes herd animals set up sentries and cluster, predators sniff and seek, etc. and basically employ natural behaviors not otherwise called for in captivity. Too bad something like this could not be introduced to captive C. viridis habitats.
If enrichment, at least the preservation of natural behavior, is not to be included, then I must disagree. A lack of enrichment is not a life, nor is it expertly performed care.
I certainly don't think generations of chameleons hatched without digging from a nest naturally, and/or cut out of their eggs, can out-compete those who have braved the initial filter of life in the wild.
They need us to not only leave them alone, but leave the habitat untouched. I'd disagree about their being "ultimately extremely beneficial to the success" of wild pops. I can think of one herp species that is bred in captivity and annually released to wild pops, and it has been successful at saving the species thus far. But, it's difficult to imagine this will happen for every delicate species. I do agree that the pertinent information gleaned from captives can influence major decisions about habitat preservation, but even that gets foggy. Land developers have their loopholes. I'd put it that keeping animals in captivity gifts us with puzzle pieces of their natural history, which then are left to us to interpret, and hopefully take the correct path to conservation.
Is this piece an eye? Or a seashell? Or a beetle carapace?
Always fun to gnaw on a topic like this!
Certainly the aquatic, esp. reef, challenges in captivity require a whole other examination. On cephalopods, I'll have to defer to Suzanne, yourself, and others.This is not something I've heard of in chameleons, but it does bring up an argument for enrichment that uses stressors for the good. You'll read of keepers putting feces of predators into prey animal enclosures, and vice versa, to give them the enrichment of the smells, and give their instincts a little dry run. It makes herd animals set up sentries and cluster, predators sniff and seek, etc. and basically employ natural behaviors not otherwise called for in captivity. Too bad something like this could not be introduced to captive C. viridis habitats.
If enrichment, at least the preservation of natural behavior, is not to be included, then I must disagree. A lack of enrichment is not a life, nor is it expertly performed care.
I certainly don't think generations of chameleons hatched without digging from a nest naturally, and/or cut out of their eggs, can out-compete those who have braved the initial filter of life in the wild.
They need us to not only leave them alone, but leave the habitat untouched.
I'd disagree about their being "ultimately extremely beneficial to the success" of wild pops. I can think of one herp species that is bred in captivity and annually released to wild pops, and it has been successful at saving the species thus far. But, it's difficult to imagine this will happen for every delicate species. I do agree that the pertinent information gleaned from captives can influence major decisions about habitat preservation, but even that gets foggy. Land developers have their loopholes. I'd put it that keeping animals in captivity gifts us with puzzle pieces of their natural history, which then are left to us to interpret, and hopefully take the correct path to conservation.Is this piece an eye? Or a seashell? Or a beetle carapace?
Always fun to gnaw on a topic like this!
OldChamKeeper
Chameleon Enthusiast
Life without the opposite sex isn't life.
Thanks for the info Chris. It's always useful coming from you. I've kept a number of my Amazon tree boas over the years and I even have one pushing 25 years now. The old serpent still likes the ladies.
The thought of a lizard only having 4 months to live just sucks. Give me a Parsonii any day.
Dave Legacy
New Member
Kristina,
I thought you made some very good points which allowed me to expand on some of my original feelings/ideas. Thanks for that!
Best regards,
Dave
I thought you made some very good points which allowed me to expand on some of my original feelings/ideas. Thanks for that!
Best regards,
Dave
Brad Ramsey
Retired Moderator
anyway it all dosent matter
I am ever fascinated by the people who dispute/challenge evolution, particularly the fact that at some point in history we took a separate path from our ape brothers and evolved into the species we are today ... this cannot be possible ... and yet ...
It is entirely plausible and believable that some magical being swirled the earth together in 7 days and conjured up (oh sorry ..."created") thousands of plant and animal species that remain exactly the same today as they were 12,000 years ago when the earth was "created".
-Brad
Jeremy l
New Member
i did stop arguing i said " it is what it is " hey, i respect everyones opinions thats the beauty that lies it us all to each think and feel the way we do. i dont have any hard feelings toward yall, what we beleive is just that. i greatfully respect all of your knowledge on chameleons and dont want to be looked at as a name that no one wants to help if a question arises. i should have never said anything, for that i am sorry for hijacking this once interesting thread. my apologies
jeremy l
jeremy l
Sepioteuthis
New Member
Sorry, I helped get the ball of this interesting discussion rolling and than didn't check back until now.
Basically, my standpoint is pretty much identical to Kristina's, when it come to what constitutes a good captive environment (enrichment is key!). And I think she's said it better than I could have.
To get back to the comparision with veileds and the influence of temp and food to their longevity and reproductive: I think what matters is to first look at what's more natural - Do wild veileds lay eggs 3 times a year and are they exposed to warm temperature and abundant food year round or is how Kinyonga and others keep their veileds (lower temp, limited food) actually a better approximation of life in the wild?
I do, however, agree that it would be very interesting to study to effect of temperature, food and water on the longevity of F. labordi - as long as this is done in a proper experimental set up so the results can be qualified and quantified.
About the cephalopods: I think there are a number of reasons why octopus and cuttlefish often don't live for a 1.5 years in captivity - even with proper husbandry - and most of those reasons are very harmless. Starting with the fact that it can be difficult to determine the age and species of many pet store octopusses. My husband and I have been keeping octopus and several times we recieved a completely different species than we were told. Instead of a young grape-sized O. bimaculatus that died before it's time, it could easily have been one of the many small indo-pacific species with a life expectancy of only 6-9 months. Anyway, I could talk about cephalopods for hours, but I won't - I don't want to drag this off topic.
Great discussion everyone!
- Suzanne
Basically, my standpoint is pretty much identical to Kristina's, when it come to what constitutes a good captive environment (enrichment is key!). And I think she's said it better than I could have.
To get back to the comparision with veileds and the influence of temp and food to their longevity and reproductive: I think what matters is to first look at what's more natural - Do wild veileds lay eggs 3 times a year and are they exposed to warm temperature and abundant food year round or is how Kinyonga and others keep their veileds (lower temp, limited food) actually a better approximation of life in the wild?
I do, however, agree that it would be very interesting to study to effect of temperature, food and water on the longevity of F. labordi - as long as this is done in a proper experimental set up so the results can be qualified and quantified.
About the cephalopods: I think there are a number of reasons why octopus and cuttlefish often don't live for a 1.5 years in captivity - even with proper husbandry - and most of those reasons are very harmless. Starting with the fact that it can be difficult to determine the age and species of many pet store octopusses. My husband and I have been keeping octopus and several times we recieved a completely different species than we were told. Instead of a young grape-sized O. bimaculatus that died before it's time, it could easily have been one of the many small indo-pacific species with a life expectancy of only 6-9 months. Anyway, I could talk about cephalopods for hours, but I won't - I don't want to drag this off topic.
Great discussion everyone!
- Suzanne
Brad Ramsey
Retired Moderator
i did stop arguing i said " it is what it is " hey, i respect everyones opinions thats the beauty that lies it us all to each think and feel the way we do. i dont have any hard feelings toward yall, what we beleive is just that. i greatfully respect all of your knowledge on chameleons and dont want to be looked at as a name that no one wants to help if a question arises. i should have never said anything, for that i am sorry for hijacking this once interesting thread. my apologies
jeremy l
We will still help you if you need it, don't worry about that.
-Brad
mczoo
Avid Member
how about live-bearers
That is the best things about this site. everyone here has a genuine interest in the well being of chameleons and no matter how opinions differ on the unessential (to chameleon care) topics discussed; help is always there for the newbies like me.
on another note, is breeding or diet limitations a factor in lifespan of the live-bearing chams such as jacksons?
Sean
We will still help you if you need it, don't worry about that.
-Brad
That is the best things about this site. everyone here has a genuine interest in the well being of chameleons and no matter how opinions differ on the unessential (to chameleon care) topics discussed; help is always there for the newbies like me
.on another note, is breeding or diet limitations a factor in lifespan of the live-bearing chams such as jacksons?
Sean
Amanda S
New Member
I just bought a CB carpet chameleon, female. I have no intention of breeding her and would like her to live as long as possible but of course have a happy life. I've read over all this discussion and there is a lot of good information and thoughts but simply put carpet's life expectancy is on the shorter side already and I would like to know what I can do to help her live a long life. I will not breed her, will she still lay eggs? (I know that might sound stupid but I know sometimes reptiles will lay eggs that are infertile, I don't know if that would affect her health?)
Dave Legacy
New Member
Capture and Transit can put a lot of strain on something as intelligent as a cephalopod. LFSs never ID anything properly, nor can they ever tell you where the specimen shipped out of. I bet you'd love So Cal, because we have bimacs all along our local coastline in the tide pools. =)
Anyway, I've never cared for cephalopods due to their short lives, but I do get a great joy out of caring for stomatopods. =)
Best regards,
Dave
Eric Adrignola
Avid Member
Creation is religion. It requires faith and faith alone.
Evolutionary theory is science. It is there not because we JUST believe it, but because we have scientific evidence. MACRO evolution, dramatic speciation throughevolutionary processes, etc. all require faith to believe. We CANNOT prove it "now", but we have faith in the evidence.
The difference is that we CAN test it, we can prove it over time, if we wanted to.
You cannot test for creation.
Beileve in creation? Fine - but don't ignore evolution. I agree wiht Chris' point, in a sense.
If you make yourself ignorant of an aspect of science because you believe it gets in the way of your faith, your hurting yourself. Study evolution - it's science, NOT religion. Jus tbecause you're knowledgable in science shouldn't make you question your faith.
Intelligent design requires god inthe equation, nullifying the "science" status of the idea outright.
Here's some food for thought:
Whywould god leave? Why stop? Because I dont' see people being "miracled" into existance out of thin air. God doesnt' work that way. I've got kids (almost two) - miracles. I took developmental anatomy, embryology, etc. - just knowing what's involved make the fact that this is even possible more of a miracle to me.
It's God's handiwork if there is a god.
And that's the way God works now - every instance of cellular mitosis is absolutly-freaking amazing.
This is, I think this is the way God has been working from the start. Do you really think God to be so simplistic to just "poof" things into existance??? Not his style.
There is NO WAY evolution has to be considered against god or religion. If anything,it's far more incredible that things worked out the way they did. Evolution, selection, etc... far more elegant and impressive than being "poofed" into life.
My biggest gripe is Scientists talking down religion and vice versa. Elite scientists refuting religion, and brainwashed, elite religious nutcases saying the university was evil because they taught evolution.
Evolutionary theory is science. It is there not because we JUST believe it, but because we have scientific evidence. MACRO evolution, dramatic speciation throughevolutionary processes, etc. all require faith to believe. We CANNOT prove it "now", but we have faith in the evidence.
The difference is that we CAN test it, we can prove it over time, if we wanted to.
You cannot test for creation.
Beileve in creation? Fine - but don't ignore evolution. I agree wiht Chris' point, in a sense.
If you make yourself ignorant of an aspect of science because you believe it gets in the way of your faith, your hurting yourself. Study evolution - it's science, NOT religion. Jus tbecause you're knowledgable in science shouldn't make you question your faith.
Intelligent design requires god inthe equation, nullifying the "science" status of the idea outright.
Here's some food for thought:
Whywould god leave? Why stop? Because I dont' see people being "miracled" into existance out of thin air. God doesnt' work that way. I've got kids (almost two) - miracles. I took developmental anatomy, embryology, etc. - just knowing what's involved make the fact that this is even possible more of a miracle to me.
It's God's handiwork if there is a god.
And that's the way God works now - every instance of cellular mitosis is absolutly-freaking amazing.
This is, I think this is the way God has been working from the start. Do you really think God to be so simplistic to just "poof" things into existance??? Not his style.
There is NO WAY evolution has to be considered against god or religion. If anything,it's far more incredible that things worked out the way they did. Evolution, selection, etc... far more elegant and impressive than being "poofed" into life.
My biggest gripe is Scientists talking down religion and vice versa. Elite scientists refuting religion, and brainwashed, elite religious nutcases saying the university was evil because they taught evolution.
Last edited:
mczoo
Avid Member
Eric,
Excellent point
I purposefully ignored the creation vs. evolution debate in my previous posts because i know how deep and strong both sides opinions can be. i have never understood their mutual exclusion. Neither theory has enough proof to explain all things. Who made the big bang? Why do we have disease and sorrow? what happened to the dinasaurs? why do we find their bones are older than any humans?
Humans have only began to understand the mysteries of our existance but we always seem to behave as though we have the answer, then we just change it and say now we have the real answer.
Perhaps science and religion are just looking at it from different perspectives. remember the story of the blind men and the elephant. each felt a different part and decribed what he found but no one could see the whole. for these men perception was radically different but it was just one elephant
hope i have not bored any of you
Sean
Excellent point
I purposefully ignored the creation vs. evolution debate in my previous posts because i know how deep and strong both sides opinions can be. i have never understood their mutual exclusion. Neither theory has enough proof to explain all things. Who made the big bang? Why do we have disease and sorrow? what happened to the dinasaurs? why do we find their bones are older than any humans?
Humans have only began to understand the mysteries of our existance but we always seem to behave as though we have the answer, then we just change it and say now we have the real answer.
Perhaps science and religion are just looking at it from different perspectives. remember the story of the blind men and the elephant. each felt a different part and decribed what he found but no one could see the whole. for these men perception was radically different but it was just one elephant
hope i have not bored any of you
Sean
desultadox
Established Member
There was some serious credibility loss in this thread... from people I'd least expect it from, too. I should begin with the disclaimer that I do not agree with Jeremy (or what little of his belief he related to us). I think you guys should be ashamed of yourselves for making a forum member feel uncomfortable about a situation he should not have to feel uncomfortable about. He was being very pacifistic and you guys ganged up on him with your evangelical evolution-preaching. Several people challenged his knowledge on the topic while demonstrating their own ineptitude. It is not his burden to disprove evolution because nobody has ever proven the THEORY of evolution. Certainly there is a lot of research to reinforce the theory, but it's still just that; a theory. I'm not really interested in this argument, because anybody who knows anything about it knows that it would be a waste of time.
So Jeremy... I for one appreciate having different opinions such as yours on this forum. I feel it makes this community stronger. You did not come off as foolish, though some other people did...
So Jeremy... I for one appreciate having different opinions such as yours on this forum. I feel it makes this community stronger. You did not come off as foolish, though some other people did...
