Sayonara

Furthermore, were it that simple, we would have no need for ecologists. I find this definition strange. Surely he acknowledges that at some point - which may or may not be arbitrarily selected, it doesn't really matter - any system of interfaces will lose continuity as an expected consequence of the interfaces having their presence in the system in the first place. I would be inclined to suggest to Katz that this has more to do with him than the birch grove. However it would be remiss of me to ignore the very probable trophism and diversity differences between that grove, and one that had arisen without human interference.

I tend to agree with that view, on the grounds that there are precious few things one could confuse it with.

Except that it's not. If you remember, I posited this idea of equal interactive values in my second post. However my third post outlined reasons why such an idea will fail (albeit very briefly), and for whatever reason you have not touched on those issues. [edit] Actually, reading back, this seems to be the critical point in the thread where a misunderstanding would (and did) do the most damage. [/edit] So you're just happy to ignore the spectrum of established theory that opposes your view. How convenient. Rhetoric. I'll say it again - that is a non sequitur. You've already told us what you think. You haven't explained why you think it, or what the perceivable mechanism is.

The relevance is questionable. If that's what you're defining it as, one assumes so. I'll be interested to see how you reconcile this with the disparity between human and non-human dispersal and migration models.

Defrag your pagefile for extra chewiness.

Not at all. What is vexing is the brick-wall response to information you didn't have before, and rightly so. Why would it not be vexing? The question may be simple - answering it is not. One cannot possibly hope to formulate anything approaching a useful response without considering all the involved factors. It's not that simple, particularly (and not exclusively) since you provide no definition of "natural". Actually you have a problem here, because if you define natural in a way that is conducive to your conclusions, the argument you provided will then be circular. You are calling man an "evolutionary development" (without stating what you think this means) and then equating this to the rather vague entity you call "man's actions". Not only is that untenable, but you offer no means of differentiating different types of action, despite the fact that it's the crux of the issue. Establishing exactly how to quantify the value of an ecosystem turns out to be even more difficult than establishing the scope of that system. See Aardvark and Drabav's posts for some idea of why it's not just a matter of simplistic semantics.

As an example, we might discuss the validity of his claim that inherent value stems from the historical continuity of an ecosystem, and the degree to which this can be held to be true.

It doesn't look to me like he was talking about all political correctness - just that particular implementation.

What I am trying to do is show you that your opinion has no bearing on real life ecological systems, which are something I happen to know a great deal about. I'm sorry you feel the need to respond with such bad grace, but that really is your problem. Yes. I really don't see where you're going with that, given the part of my post that it was a response to. Since [a] species doesn't have a tendency to "create environments and ecosystems" within an equilibrial community, you can call it what you like. Just don't expect anyone to subscribe to the notion without a good explanation of what you're talking about, preferably one fitting the established models. Refer to the post you are replying to. They are a part of the habitat that the community has stabilised around. Note that (a) the two are inter-dependent, and (b) they are not the only determining factors in system stability. Moving the goalposts - good luck with that. Regardless, it was you who raised the matter of dominance when you said - out of the blue - " But the real reason that ants and prairie dogs have not taken over the planet is because they lack the IQ to do so", and then started talking about intelligence. It's not a matter of what I prefer - it's a matter of the two things being distinctly and obviously different. Not relevant. There are innumerable food webs, and we have barely any involvement in a tiny number of them, none whatsoever in the majority. That has nothing to do with the section you were replying to, nothing to do with this thread, and - third time's the charm - little to do with eco/evo dominance. You have been warned on several occasions now about your liberal and indiscrete use of the sarcasm smileys. You have all the hallmarks of a troll, and I have absolutely no compunctions about treating you in the same way I would any other troll. The choice is yours. I might well ask you the same question. For my part, I was originally hoping to shed some light on the bits you clearly misunderstood. Now however my mandate is to stop people leaving this thread under the impression that what you have said makes sense in any scientifically useful way. In other news, there is plenty more that can be discussed that is relevant to Katz's position - it's just that what you are saying isn't it.

There's certainly room for cross-over, but I agree that's not what Katz was aiming for. His principles seem to be scale-independent.

I can assure you we are not. We (by which I mean the thread) decided that "natural" is a subjective term several posts ago. Going over that again is a step backwards. I can tell you now though that one species creating an environment or an ecosystem is not normal interpopulace activity (and to a lesser extent habitats, although there are numerous exceptions to this). Whether or not you want to call this "unnatural" is up to your point of view, but if it's not within the scope of ecological interactions then it has little to do with the question. For me, and every other biologist in the thread, and the thread starter, and certainly for Eric Katz. What you are trying to point out is patently incorrect. Humans are not so unnatural as many people say they are, granted, but we are ecologically unique. You won't be "taking my lead" as if I'm telling you to limit yourself to four random things for no reason; you'll be using actual biology. If you want to be taken seriously in a discussion on ecological interactions, you ought to not make up your own special branch of the science in which the complexity of the system shares its limits with what you know about. "I waffled about biology and a biologist corrected me! Quick, try to be scathing!" I am fairly sure you can do better than that. Humans are. Not all human activity is. BEHOLD THE MIGHTY DISTINCTION! Argue: 1) To put forth reasons for or against; debate. 2) To attempt to prove by reasoning; maintain or contend. 3) To give evidence of; indicate. 4) To persuade or influence (another), as by presenting reasons. Which is all well and good, but has nothing to do with eco/evo dominance. Humans aren't part of a food chain, they are part of a food web. Notice that I say "a" and not "the"? Polar bears and great white sharks are a good example of alternate top predators - better in fact since we aren't strictly (on the whole) a predatory species in the biological sense. And let's not forget the communities we never interact with, such as oceanic sulphur chimneys. Attempting to reduce ecological biology on a global scale to the assumed directionality of a single trophic network is a really, really bad idea. Fundamental attribution error. It does not follow that the mechanistic products of evolved intelligence are similarly the (inevitable or otherwise) natural product of biological evolution. Arguing that they are will require significant evidence. Publishing a paper on the subject in Nature would probably help. Note that Katz's questioning of the value of restoration does not only arise where humans caused a screw-up. The issue has already been largely answered in the thread using ecological concepts with meaning. I'm sorry you don't appreciate that, but there we go.

"Genesis Wave" is taken. Try again.

To put it another way, "evolution in action" is directionless. Being governed by something is not the same as determining something, is it? Eating per se is not individual behaviour. Yes, but you stated that it would increase her representation, which it won't. At best self-sacrifice will keep it the same while removing potential future representation. Assume any individual with her genes can be represented as G. Assume that the theoretical number of offspring she could produce can be represented by N. Representation if no threat or no self-sacrifice: Gmother + Ginfant + GN Representation if successful self-sacrifice: Ginfant G < 2G + GN (Actually we can probably discard Gmother to be more accurate, so we have G < G + GN). Even assuming the mother only gives birth to one infant, we end up with G = G, and the infant can still die.

Or, as a wacky alternative explanation, people who write things like "ye be warned" don't understand what they are writing.

That's very unlikely. An ecosystem is not like a metronome - it won't always "swing back" to a single point of equilibrium. It's far more likely that changes to the trophic networks will fundamentally shift the relationships between the various species, leading to a different set of equilibrium dynamics. And let's not forget that primary colonisers are usually unbound by interactive constraints.

You don't seem to be making much effort to explain why Hardy-Weinberg dynamics in foxes are relevant to the bits of biology we're discussing. This thread is about dynamic equilibria and the value of one set of interfaces over another. It's not "2 Spp. Interactions 101". It would be helpful if you understood what "habitat" means to an ecologist. This thread is probably not the place to find out. I did specify four means of modification earlier on, none of which have you referred to. I have indeed been to both a pig farm and to areas populated by pre-sanglier wild pigs (and boar, obviously, seeing as you can't walk through French woodland without tripping over them). Again, not really anything to do with the discussion - "pigs in making like the pigs shocker" glides quietly past the original question and doesn't look back. I did not say that. I pointed out the non sequitur in your reasoning. Please don't argue with such unqualifiable guff. IQ is an arbitrary scale for comparing humans in terms of their mental age versus their physical age. It is barely any good at intraspecies comparisons - to state that it can be used to quantify any relation to other species is ludicrous. It's an abstract concept that we made up. By all means argue that intelligence is a factor in dominance, but bear in mind before you do that no intelligent species (including humans) is actually considered an ecologically and evolutionarily dominant one. No, it's not. Unless you wish to narrow your criteria by specifying an endangered species (in which case I suggest you try to pick one that is going extinct due to human-caused abiotic factors, and then show that selection is mythical.) That last suggestion seems to be inconsistent with the rest of your post. On the one hand you are drawing parallels between human-led effects on ecological systems and animal-led effects, playing down the difference, but on the other you seem to be saying that we are altering the planet. Are we 'worse' or not?

Yes please

Considering the first post of this thread, it seems to be failing.

"ye" is actually a different way of writing "the". "Th" was symbolised by a character that is indistinguishable from the modern "y".

Having studied the H-W equilibrium models, vortex distributions and so forth, I can honestly say I have no idea why you think that is relevant. Something of a truism. Non sequitur. I really don't see what that has to do with anything. Neither case shares the habitat-modifying features I listed for human cities. I don't think there is just one reason, given the way that ecology works. Anyway, most biologists agree that insects are the dominant macroscopic organisms on Earth, not humans, so IQ (being a relativistic human deceipt in any case) is clearly not a factor. No, but I think it's off-topic.

That was really bad, but top marks for subtlety. I want a cigar now

What HAVE YOU DONE? :barf:

That is expressly not what I intended to say.

No they won't. Evolutionary change is expressed retrospectively. That's individual behaviour. It has nothing to do with the evolutionary fitness of the species. No it doesn't.