The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Why doesn't ecological instability rapidly wipe out lots of important species?  (Read 11888 times)

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11987
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Not sure what it proves Martin? That amoebas are capable of learning? Isn't that what i would call adaption? And so a evolution? What it states may be that you can see simple organisms adapt at short time scales though?

" A new experiment demonstrated that amoebas slow their motion in synchronization with periodic hostile changes in their environment.  The amoebas even displayed anticipation to the periodically appearing unfavorable conditions. This meant that they even slowed down when the adverse condition was to be expected to appear even it did not occur.  A new experiment demonstrated that amoebas slow their motion in synchronization with periodic hostile changes in their environment. The amoebas even displayed anticipation to the periodically appearing unfavorable conditions. This meant that they even slowed down when the adverse condition was to be expected to appear even it did not occur.A team of scientists from Hokkaido University  and the ATR Wave Engineering Laboratories in Japan  cultured the single celled slime mold Physarum polycephalum (a member of the amoeba clan) in a bed of oat flakes on an agar media.

Every ten minutes the air was made slightly cooler and drier, which had the effect of slowing the movement of the amoebas.Then more favorable air would be restored and the motion continued as before. After several cycles, the amoebas slowed down their motion even when the hostile conditions were not applied. Later still, when the organisms have been tricked into anticipating impending climate change several times, they stop from slowing without an actual change in conditions. One of the researchers, Toshiyuki Nakagaki from Hokkaido (nakagaki@es.hokudai.ac.jp), cautions that amoebas do not have a brain and that this is not an example of classic “Pavlovian” conditioned response behavior. Nevertheless, it might represent more evidence for a primitive sensitivity or intelligence, based on the dynamic behavior of the tubular structures deployed by the amoeba.  (Saigusa et al., Physical Review Letters, 11 January 2008 ).  Source: American Institute of Physics."

If fits right in with the complicated behavior we had in those bacterias to me though, seems we have different mechanisms for evolution, don't know how to check for chemical and genes differing in the population after the experiment though? Because if you could prove a change there then I would call it a 'mutation' through a changing environment I think. But there is one thing more, and that is what information they already have inscribed. Because if 'nature' meet such occasions before, then I think it should become easier for them to adapt, than if there was nothing similar ever happening to amoebas before, all as I see it?
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11987
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
This might throw some light on possible relations.

"Biologists have been estimating the size of genomes for decades. In 1971, for example, researchers reported that a species of Italian bat, Miniopterus, has a genome half the size of the human genome. Similarly, the genome of Muntiacus, a species of Asian barking deer, was estimated at about 70 percent of that of humans. As reported this week, the human genome contains about 3 billion chemical units of DNA, or base pairs.

In the animal kingdom, the relationship between genome size and evolutionary status is not clear. One of the largest genomes belongs to a very small creature, Amoeba dubia. This protozoan genome has 670 billion units of DNA, or base pairs. The genome of a cousin, Amoeba proteus, has a mere 290 billion base pairs, making it 100 times larger than the human genome. " http://www.genomenewsnetwork.org/articles/02_01/Sizing_genomes.shtml

You might think of it this way. We have a evolution through simple small organisms to complex large ones. but the amount of genes they have may be a result of different climates and ways of life, amoebas have been here for a very long time as I understands it, and maybe the idea of dormant genes awakening may play a part in it? Or you could see the genes that are active as a 'synthesis' of all those dormant ones too, meaning that they already were 'ready' for a change, and so able to react on it?
==

what i mean is that it might be possible to see the amount of genes as 'information' defining 'rules'. Those rules will behave 'intelligently'  to us, but they are not the same as us humans using our mind consciously. We could all decide today to throw our car keys away, amoebas can not, We can also decide to limit our population today, through freely deciding one kid per person, ameobas might do the same due to environment, but not before it was there.

Thinking about it, the worst thing I might say about us then would be that we are closer to amoebas than previously thought :) That is, if we don't start doing something positive about our environment inside the closest decades. Because, every year will count for more, as it accelerates, as I think.

But it's still nice news, as it mean that Nature will be able to adapt, given time. The problem there is just how much time complex organisms will need, migrating etc. We have a accelerating global warming, combined with a increasing CO2 man made, each year. I don't mean that it is 'the end' of anything, but we will see species disappear, due to our ignorance, and greed.
« Last Edit: 02/05/2013 20:17:11 by yor_on »
 

Offline damocles

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 756
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
I am absolutely not a biologist. I thought I was seeing a pattern that I recognised from similar cases in the physical sciences -- smog simulations, and weather/climate models.
The fact that introduced species often do seriously upset ecosystems in ways that causes extinctions proves that "flaws in the computer simulations" are not an adequate explanation.

I do not see how or why this is the case. "flaws in the computer simulations" are not intended as a catch all explanation, especially not if the ecosystem undergoes some basic change.

Quote
And if the theory of flawed computer simulations is taken seriously, it is the same as supporting the Gaia hypothesis, and are you really willing to do that? I doubt so.
You will need to lead me by the hand here. What does all this have to do with the Gaia hypothesis?

Quote
Furthermore, the whole gene-centered theory of how life behaves predicts that there should be "intergenomic conflict" between the cellular nuclei and the mitochondria in our cells, and a three-side standoff with chloroplasts in plant cells (cellular nuclei, mitochondria and chloroplasts all have their own genomes and are not closely related at all). So why are there no such conflicts?

How are the cellular nuclei and the mitochondria and the chloroplasts supposed to attack one another?
Is there perhaps a symbiotic arrangement that benefits all parties?
Are not the mitochondria essentially "hitching a ride" on the operations of the cellular nuclei, which should not matter as long as they do not interfere?
Is there not a model for the interaction of parasites, which have an interest in weakening but not killing the host animal?
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11987
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
There is one thing more, RNA (micro RNA) and DNA seems to have a very complex relationship as I gather. A lot of new 'patents' in genetics are no more that copying natural designs, and then restricting a description of how it is thought to work. I'm very tired of the American way of 'patenting' nature myself. All a question of unbridled greed. I suspect one could say that most of our inventions are no more than copying, although we present it as if we 'invented' it instead. That behavior goes very well with the way we mishandled our resources naturally, the sort of hubris typical for human greed I would say. Yeah, I know, I'm not very nice in my outlook of us all here, feel free to prove me wrong. And I don't think that hubris to be isolated to industrialized countries, it exist everywhere, in different disguises.

http://www.vetmeduni.ac.at/en/infoservice/current-issues/presseinformation/presseinfo2013/press-release-04-19-2013-a-surprising-new-function-for-small-rnas-in-evolution/
 

Offline Martin J Sallberg

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 86
    • View Profile
The "Amoebas Anticipate Climate Change" link can be googled. Relevance is achieved by googling with quotation marks for the exact phrase.

The point about the amoebas is that they learned to adapt to the cycle within their lifetime, without cell divisions and thus without the conventional form of evolution. They learned a specific cycle. Have you ever heard of 10 minute cycles being predominant in "nature"? They sure have faced lots of different kinds of cycles in "nature", so specific adaptation to certain types of cycles theough natural selection cannot explain it.

The point about mitochondria, chloroplasts and cellular nuclei is that they are not closely related, but yet cooperate without "intergenomic conflict". Yes, they depend on each other, but so do organisms in an ecosystem. So "selfish replicators" cannot be the reason for destruction of ecosystems. This shows that anti-ecological selfishness is all a faliure of communication, sometimes combined with justification poisoning.

And the reason why I mentioned the Gaia hypothesis is because the computer simulations about collapsing ecosystems is what is considered to have falsified Gaia.
« Last Edit: 03/05/2013 15:09:36 by Martin J Sallberg »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11987
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Are you telling me that this quote is incorrect Martin?
Then present me the paper involved instead.

I will read it with interest.
 

Offline damocles

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 756
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
OK Martin, I can see now that you have used sloppy logic regarding Gaia.

The original proposition can be expressed
If A then B
not B
therefore not A
(A perfectly valid syllogism)

However when you reverse it:
If A then B
B
therefore A
the logic becomes invalid.

 

Offline damocles

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 756
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
The whole point about symbiotic arrangements is that there has to be "something in it" for each party. Dismissing it by saying that an ecosystem is dependent on similar arrangements is a bit of a cop out:
Regarding an ecosystem as an organism is a little like taking a gestalt view of the situation (reminiscent of Gaia?).
There is no advantage for any "prey" organism to co-operate with its predator, as can readily be seen in the enormous variety of mechanisms that prey organisms use to hide from/confuse/distract their predators.
 

Offline CliffordK

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6321
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • Site Moderator
    • View Profile
A model is only as good as the design and the input to the model.

One of the important parts of our environment are niches.

Each species has become optimized for a particular niche.  Some plants like dry soil, some plants like moist soil.  Some tolerate dry summers, some don't.  Cold winters?  Lack of freezing? 

Then you have the herbivores.  If they eat all their food supply, they die off.  If there is excess food, they flourish. 

And, the carnivores.  Some are good at hunting large game.  Some hunt small game.  Some in forests, some in meadows and plains. 

Perhaps one important part of an ecological niche is a way to preserve oneself at times of stress.  Some desert plants can survive as dormant seeds for decades, waiting for the next big rainfall. 

Now, the models may be absolutely correct.  If two species share the exact same niche, then it may be common for the one to become slightly favored over the other and out compete the other.  In this case, the lesser species will have to either find its own niche, or be driven to extinction.

There likely are a couple of forms of evolution.  In some cases, all members of a species or subspecies will interbreed, and the species as a whole will drift towards the strongest and fittest. 

If, however, there is a mutation such as chromosomes splitting or merging, then there may be no interbreeding, and a new species would originate.  If the new species out competes the old species, then all members of the old may eventually die off.

I.E.  we have horses, but no 3-toed-horses.

Due to predator/prey feedback, some predators, in particular severely limit their offspring, often to one viable baby per year, or perhaps even less. 

Throw humans in the mix, and we stir up the niches.  Take the best for ourselves.  We over-hunt, so that species that were adapted to slow reproductive cycles suffer.   Some species adapt.  There are many suburban deer that may consider flower gardens a delicacy.  Other species fare poorly.

 

Offline CliffordK

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6321
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • Site Moderator
    • View Profile
There is no advantage for any "prey" organism to co-operate with its predator, as can readily be seen in the enormous variety of mechanisms that prey organisms use to hide from/confuse/distract their predators.

Perhaps no overt cooperation between predators and prey.  But they do function together.  The predators may help remove the diseased animals from a herd, and in that way help protect the whole herd.  And, of course, also pushing constant evolution towards the "fittest", or at least pushing evolution away from the unfit.

The predators are also an important part to keep the prey from overpopulation, and thus destroying their own survival niche, with more prey bringing better predator survival, and less prey bringing less predator survival, neither destroying their whole niche.
 

Offline Martin J Sallberg

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 86
    • View Profile
Adding predators to "manage the herbivore population" does not solve the problem, it just moves it. Predators are just as likely to overkill their prey as herbivores are to overkill plants. This is an example as good as any showing that it takes something absolutely qualitatively different from anything explainable by "genetic self-interest" to avert very rapid mass extinction, humans or no humans.

And even considered that it is possible for herbivores to provide carnivores with nutrition without dying themselves? I think of eggs, milk, blood, etc. The carnivore could then fertilize the herbivore's food with dung. Arrangements where plants provide for herbivores without being killed is also concievable. Those would, if they were common, have been macroscopic equivalents of the cellular nuclei/mitochondria/chloroplast arrangement. The point is that what causes ecosystems to conflict is faliure of communication and not "fundamental interest". Communication over short distances is easier. Did you know that dying from new diseases "immunological naivity" is generally due to immunological overreaction and not the germ itself?
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11987
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
I like the idea of genes meaning rules myself. That transforms it into something that you can treat mathematically. And the type of mathematics you will need for treating it (life and competition) is non linear, which makes it chaos mathematics. And there you will find a lot of surprises, as 'mystical attractors', as well as hidden constants (Feigenbaum for example). It's one of the main things we believe in, that each time you get a amount of something interacting, it should be possible to find a mathematical description of it. The problem is that you have a lot of interactions, too many to treat distinctly, also making small initial differences into major as the complexity builds up. But there are constants existing in those chaotic behaviors too, and if there are you can be assured that the pattern evolving is treatable and logical. But I wish you could simplify what you mean Martin, because I lose myself reading you, not being sure what ideas you argue for?

That we can't explain how life co-exist?
Or that we can't explain what leads to species extinction?
Or is it something more to it? Intelligent design?
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11987
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
I don't know if selfish genes are the right description either, if it is solely that you are disputing? I would say it is a game of probability, related to what environment presented, genes becoming 'rules' adapting to it. More like emerging patterns than 'one to one' relations, even though those too must be present. All as a guess..
 

Offline Martin J Sallberg

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 86
    • View Profile
I am arguing that since organisms would have time to eat their food stocks to extinction before starving to death themselves, some form of learning from mistakes qualitatively different from hardwiring by natural selection is necessary to explain why it does not lead to incessant mass extinction that wipes all life out. The learning from mistakes and the emergent foresight that follows from it does only involve emergent processes based on conventional chemical reactions, not anything like "souls", "deities" or anything like that.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11987
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Don't know if it always can be assumed to have been a competition myself? We had very simple organisms in the beginning getting their nutrition from nature itself, what did they 'compete' with? Then climate change, as well as the organisms mutates, creating different (sub? New?) species. And suddenly you have upped the complexity to one where they might need to compete for some food source. And that's where kismet and genetics starts to play a role for the balance. Also one need to remember that mutations won't stop in either case, so if one species are more prepared than the other it should force the other to adapt in some other way, meaning that those that won't adapt will die out. It should fast become very complicated, the more species you introduce. As for all organisms coming from the same start I agree, and neither do I think that humans have some special place reserved in nature. Not from geological time processes and from the view of a earth 'creating' or at least allowing emergent life forms.
 

Offline Martin J Sallberg

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 86
    • View Profile
Don't know if it always can be assumed to have been a competition myself? We had very simple organisms in the beginning getting their nutrition from nature itself, what did they 'compete' with? Then climate change, as well as the organisms mutates, creating different (sub? New?) species. And suddenly you have upped the complexity to one where they might need to compete for some food source. And that's where kismet and genetics starts to play a role for the balance. Also one need to remember that mutations won't stop in either case, so if one species are more prepared than the other it should force the other to adapt in some other way, meaning that those that won't adapt will die out. It should fast become very complicated, the more species you introduce. As for all organisms coming from the same start I agree, and neither do I think that humans have some special place reserved in nature. Not from geological time processes and from the view of a earth 'creating' or at least allowing emergent life forms.

But why are not food stocks being incessantly eaten into mass extinction today? Lots of animals have much time to eat what little food they can find before starving to death. Think of snakes, crocodiles, camels, and so on. That means that simple collapses of consumer populations cannot prevent an incessant mass extinction that should make the history of life (barring a possible early peroid with little competition, as you mentioned) very short. The problem is what happens after that possible non-competetive period.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11987
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
To me then Martin :)

Think of life as a game, the game fast becomes complex as its proportions grow. But it has rules, initial rules as genes RNA etc, those are internal. Then it has other rules, some of them falling out of the complexity, so becoming 'theoretical' although extremely real, as social rules. People kill themselves because they do not fit those rules, so they are, as 'real' as can be. But the game have rules, and we follow them, one way or another, until we die. You kill and eat until you're not hungry, most carnivorous species do, although you have exceptions to it. But all of those rules I expect to have been created under a evolution, assuming that genes want to live. To kill of your food is contra productive, so those species either are extinct, have changed their ways, or live in a situation where food sources are able to reproduce in numbers greater than the predators ability to cover a given territory and kill. To me it must be a balance, although dynamic and non-linear, meaning that you always will find room for surprises. A non linear system can break down, it can oscillate between 'extremes', it can also 'settle down' into a semi stable situation that on human time scales will be perceived as 'stable'. Take a look at http://library.thinkquest.org/3493/frames/chaos.html

If there is rules to evolution, then there are at least two sets. One initial, aka genes etc, the other coming after as a result of theoretical frameworks, aka social. As I think. And if there are rules, then we have mathematics for describing how they behave, but the mathematics we use must build on our understanding of what the rules are, so chaos mathematics that describe it best are a 'new invention' to us, mostly created as far as I can see under the last forty, or so, years. A lot of the tools we use today are fairly new I think, but people somehow seem to assume that they always have been there, and so use old descriptions alongside those new tools, making it all into confusion.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11987
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
What you can ask yourself from a description as this is whether humans are following those rules or are becoming a exception to them. How much food do a store throw away each week in a industrialized country, relative a undeveloped? And will either of them fit a situation in where you went out just to feed yourself, and family? It may sound silly but Earth isn't based on us throwing away resources, even if renewable.
 

Offline Martin J Sallberg

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 86
    • View Profile
No, reproductive success formulas cannot explain avoiding to wipe food stocks out. Blind natural selection would always favor those that reproduced the most viable and fertile offspring, leading to killing of food stocks under the principle of having time to exterminate before starving to death oneself. Chaos simulations have the unjust advantage of not necessarily having to take reproduction into account. So there must be something qualitatively different from reproductive evolution directing at least behavioral evolution (and, as shown in "DNA sequence variation and methylation in an arsenic tolerant earthworm population" by Mark Hodson, it applies to biochemical evolution too, that big change in at most 170 years cannot be explained by random mutations and natural selection).
 

Offline cheryl j

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1460
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
Well, actually 99% of species that ever existed are extinct.
 

Offline damocles

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 756
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
From Martin J Sallberg:
Quote
While simple computer simulations appeared to support the Gaia hypothesis (self-stabilizing ecosystems), adding more complexity to the simulations did not support the theory at all.

So, Martin, you would agree that simple models get the story right, yet most of your subsequent posts say that

Quote
I am arguing that since organisms would have time to eat their food stocks to extinction before starving to death themselves, some form of learning from mistakes qualitatively different from hardwiring by natural selection is necessary to explain why it does not lead to incessant mass extinction that wipes all life out.

This really is not self-evident. Plants are continually growing. Herbivores do not have infinite appetites so a small population can be supported on the growth of the plants. Carnivores restrict the size of herbivore populations without wiping out the herbivores.
Why? Because the population of carnivores is restricted by the availability of food. But carnivores do not "wipe themselves out" because of the luck of the hunt.

What model are you using to state your view with such certainty?

(By the way I can see the force of your argument about the learning of amoebae).
 

Offline CliffordK

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6321
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • Site Moderator
    • View Profile
I agree with Damocles and others.  A lot will depend on the model.  If one chooses the right parameters.
  • Food Source Availability.
  • Resilience to over predation (both plants and animals).
  • Ability to "hide"
  • Multi-tier predators
  • etc.

A mouse will eat grain.
A lion won't hunt mice.
But, the lion might hunt whatever hunts the mice. 
So, a bountiful harvest of grains will mean lots of mice, which means more small cats, dogs, eagles, etc.
Which then means more climax predators.  Each keeping the next in check.  And, in turn, limiting one will limit them all.

I've thought a bit about games like "Empire" where the goal is global conquest.  Or, in Linux, there is a simple galactic game called Konquest.  A "draw" doesn't occur.  At some point, someone will conquer everything. 

However, "nature" has far more levels of complexity and checks in balances.  And, since not all is equal, somehow it all became stable.  At least until Man started shaking up the pot.  Even so, eventually a new equilibrium would occur, even without our intervention.
 

Offline Martin J Sallberg

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 86
    • View Profile
From Martin J Sallberg:
Quote
While simple computer simulations appeared to support the Gaia hypothesis (self-stabilizing ecosystems), adding more complexity to the simulations did not support the theory at all.

So, Martin, you would agree that simple models get the story right, yet most of your subsequent posts say that

Quote
I am arguing that since organisms would have time to eat their food stocks to extinction before starving to death themselves, some form of learning from mistakes qualitatively different from hardwiring by natural selection is necessary to explain why it does not lead to incessant mass extinction that wipes all life out.

This really is not self-evident. Plants are continually growing. Herbivores do not have infinite appetites so a small population can be supported on the growth of the plants. Carnivores restrict the size of herbivore populations without wiping out the herbivores.
Why? Because the population of carnivores is restricted by the availability of food. But carnivores do not "wipe themselves out" because of the luck of the hunt.

What model are you using to state your view with such certainty?

(By the way I can see the force of your argument about the learning of amoebae).

Now you are conflating the empirical observation with the prediction of the theory. Yes, there is obviously empirical evidence that eating does not result in an incessant mass extinction that cuts the history of life on Earth very short (barring brand new abiogenesis). However, the theory of reproductive success-driven evolution still predicts that it should happen. If theories could be defended by saying that "the theory does not make prediction x because prediction x is empirically false" then the theory of a lumniferous aether would have been defended by saying that "well, there are no annual changes in the speed of light in different directions, and therefore the theory of a lumniferous aether does not predict that such changes should happen".

The theory of maximized reproduction predicts that animals should reproduce maximally during periods of abundant food, growing in population. It is when food stocks dwindle that the fact that they have time to exterminate their food before starving to death themselves comes in. Then the theory of maximized reproduction predicts that their then too large populations should eat their food into extinction.

The simple computer models does not take fat deposits into account, thus ignoring the fact that starving to death takes significant amounts of time.
« Last Edit: 09/05/2013 16:25:34 by Martin J Sallberg »
 

Offline damocles

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 756
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
From Martin J Sallberg:
Quote
Now you are conflating the empirical observation with the prediction of the theory.
I most certainly am not, Martin. I am pointing out why your later statement is not self-evident because at least one model of ecosystems would have it otherwise.
Quote
The simple computer models does not take fat deposits into account, thus ignoring the fact that starving to death takes significant amounts of time.
This is indeed interesting, because what if the stress of the hunt, which would start when the herbivore population started to dwindle and less successful individual predators started burning their fat reserves, turned off the reproductive imperative? This makes sense in terms of the fact that reproduction uses extra energy reserves, and it makes empirical sense in terms of the fact that predator populations are larger than they "ought to be" and the absence of excessive corpses of predators.
Please note that I am not suggesting that this is "the answer". Rather I am pointing out why you cannot take your view of the situation as self-evident.
 

Offline Martin J Sallberg

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 86
    • View Profile
From Martin J Sallberg:
Quote
Now you are conflating the empirical observation with the prediction of the theory.
I most certainly am not, Martin. I am pointing out why your later statement is not self-evident because at least one model of ecosystems would have it otherwise.
Quote
The simple computer models does not take fat deposits into account, thus ignoring the fact that starving to death takes significant amounts of time.
This is indeed interesting, because what if the stress of the hunt, which would start when the herbivore population started to dwindle and less successful individual predators started burning their fat reserves, turned off the reproductive imperative? This makes sense in terms of the fact that reproduction uses extra energy reserves, and it makes empirical sense in terms of the fact that predator populations are larger than they "ought to be" and the absence of excessive corpses of predators.
Please note that I am not suggesting that this is "the answer". Rather I am pointing out why you cannot take your view of the situation as self-evident.

Any energy-saving in starving eaters would just worsen the situation by slowing down their starving to death, giving them even more time to eat their dwindling food stocks into extinction. The too large population would have came from the reproduction in the previous time of plenty, which is not altered by decreased or even stopped reproduction during the starvation. If you starve, you eat what you get, so even if your appetite is decreased during starvation it is still bigger than the dwindled food supply. And that is all what it takes to show that the whole maximum reproduction model of evolution (as opposed to qualitatively non-Malthusian evolution theories) inevitably predicts that mass extinction should not be possible to postpone for even a decade. But, and this is an important point, that the theory predicts it does not mean that it is true. The mismatch between prediction and evidence means that the theory is wrong. The versions of evolutionary theory that are based on maximization of reproduction are thus wrong. There is lots of evidence that evolution has happened and is happening, but it must evidently be in non-Malthusian forms.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum


 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums