0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
One thing I have wondered is why few plants are good at absorbing Nitrogen from the air. Yet, perhaps absorbing too much nitrogen could seriously destabilize the whole planet.
You are going out from a human preconception there, based on what we refer to as IQ Earth doesn't use IQ, instead it use just what you refer to as 'over population, and that is imprinted in all genes existing. Why else would people feel so 'attacked' when suggesting we could limit our population on a voluntary basis? we blame that on all sorts of things but deep down I expect it to be a genetic imperative.Earth does not see us as the 'kings and queens' of this planet, and do not deem us as 'irreplaceables' either. She use another time scale than humans, and have still time left to try some other way.
Martin, you're making me curious. Can you link your evidence so I can see what you're talking about?
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.
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.
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?
• 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.
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.
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.
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.
From Martin J Sallberg:QuoteWhile 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 thatQuoteI 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.
The simple computer models does not take fat deposits into account, thus ignoring the fact that starving to death takes significant amounts of time.
From Martin J Sallberg:QuoteNow 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.