Speaking as an actual scientist, I have to agree with Crawd’s statement, this is not “science” it is just [bad] correlation of random data points.
I will take it apart a little further… Just because an animal shows an ability to perform a task does not mean that animal is designed for that life style. Sloths are able to swim, but it would be wholly foolish to use that as a logical argument to say that sloths are semi-aquatic. But that is the argument being made here with ball pythons, just because they can climb to a limited capacity does not make them semi-arboreal…
Does this rattlesnake 4m up a tree mean that they are now semi-arboreal?
A simple observation of their body structure tells you balls are not semi-arboreal. I also think it is stretching it a bit to call an eastern rat semi-arboreal. Both species very clearly lack the physiological traits that define a semi-arboreal species. Compare them to a true semi-arboreal like a carpet python or a scrub or a Boa. There are very specific evolutionary adaptations these species have to allow for that lifestyle that ball pythons very clearly do not have
.
.
.
There are some people doing work like this. Lori Torrini (not certain I spelled that right) and Zac Loughman are both pursuing different studies along these lines
.
.
.
I think you are unfairly maligning breeders here. Yes, breeders keep in rack systems. But they do so because it is the easiest and most economical way for them to breed. I do not believe I have ever heard a breeder say that racks are the best way to keep animals, period, end of discussion. They just say that it is best and easiest way to keep high numbers of animals for the purposes of producing at the levels the want/need to produce at.