🚀 go-pugleaf

kelly.cowan@ebbs.cts.com wrote:
> >  Unless a population (of a species
> >- that typically does not exhibit cycles like a vole) declines severely
> >- and is kept at low levels, the species genetic variability is not
> >- compromised [when individuals are killed].
> >
> >That is nonsense. I just called a professional biologist I know, and he said
> >I am right. He also said that lots of biologists don't understand this.
> >Since you have refused several times to respond to my comments directly,
> >instead changing the subject, I can only infer that you CAN'T respond.
> 
> Wow Mike, I just called a biologist I know and says Rick is right.  Rick is
> a habitat ecologist, quite familiar with what biodiversity means.  You are
> embarrassing yourself by debating with an expert over this.

I may not be an expert, but I have read the experts -- the same way Rick learned.
I am not the least bit embarrassed, because I know I am right. BTW, you are
another person arguing in favor of mountain biking who doesn't admit to being
one. That might affect how people judge your argument....

> May I inquire as to what your education is?

M.A. in math from Harvard; Ph.D. in psychology/psychometrics from UCLA.

> In you narrow-mindedness, you assume one cannot partake in mountian biling
> and be a scientist.

You misread me. I said that he is twisting the scietific facts to support MTBing,
because he wants to rationalize his OWN mountain biking.
---
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8 years
fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

http://www.imaja.com/change/environment/mvarticles