🚀 go-pugleaf

>Rick A. Hopkins wrote:
>-
>- Mike:
>-
>- I do not know where you are getting your info on biodiversity, but I
>- suggest you broaden your horizons.  Biodiversity is a realitively new
>- term.  It does not simply mean genes.  Biodiversity is a represents the
>- number of habitats in the region (preferably ones that should be
>- there), the number of and relatively abundance of species in a region,
>- and thirdly the genetic variability of the species.  This is how
>- conservation biologist use the term (the ones that coined it).
>
>Every time I make a point, you change the subject, instead of answering dire
>y.
>We are talking about biodiversity of species, not habitat. The basis of biod
>rsity
>is genetic variability, as I said. You continue to say "number of species",
>ch
>is a crude and pretty worthless measure of genetic variability. You also con
>ue
>to miss genetic variability BETWEEN species, which shows that you can't even
>fine
>your own term. This is in spite of my explaining that several times!
>
>- It is important to maintain the genetic variability of a species
>- (population of a species since most species have numerous populations),
>- and this is (or should be) the goal of conservation planning.  This is
>- accomplished by maintaining viable populations good quality habitats so
>- that ecological processes (population cycles, predation, competition,
>- etc.) can operate as they should.  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.  You may wish to believe it is, but you will be hard
>- pressed to find a professor or researcher that will agree with you.  So
>- you may not care that the entire (or at least almost the entire since
>- the only absolute in science is there are no absolutes) fields of
>- ecology, genetics, evolution, and conservation biology do not agree
>- with your assessment, but at least quite misusing science to support a
>- position that is philospically based.
>
>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.

>- As I said before, I do not care if you wish to preach you concepts
>- about human free wildlife areas, but do not misuse scientific concepts
>- to get there.  Own up to the fact that your are pushing a personal
>- philosphy.
>
>Spoken by a half-educated "scientist" who happens to be a mountain biker, to
>rationalize mountain biking (while claiming to be "scientific").

Low blow.  May I inquire as to what your education is?
And don't be such a piss-ant.  We all have our hobbies.  I know many
scientists who are outdoors people.  They hike, bike, hunt, fish, and rock
climb.  This is because (what a revelation) they ENJOY the outdoors and
chose a profession that would put them there!!
In you narrow-mindedness, you assume one cannot partake in mountian biling
and be a scientist.  Hmm..  What is your throry about me I am curious.  I am
a teacher who likes to go hiking.   I am also an environmental activist.  Is
it possible in your world to love the wilderness and still hike in it at the
same time?  Even though trails can cause erosion?  Is it possible to be a
responsible biker or hiker?  Or are these activities wrong?




>- If you wish to make preach this philospical point, fine.
>
>It is not philosophical. You said that it is okay to kill individuals, becau
>biodiversity won't be lost. That is scientific falsehood.

That is a twisting of the facts.   Just like hunting, killing an
individual in a population does not damage the whole.  Destroying the
habitat causes loss in biodiversity, not stepping on the ant.


> But you must >-
first recognize several things.  Many individuals that die are not
>- necessarily unfit, they are simply unlucky.

> >Yes, I know all that. In fact, I recently chided someone for claiming
that >evolution was "survival of the fittest".

> >- understanding the interelationships.  Also do some basic reading in >-
ecology and evolution.  I tire of your kindergarten view of these >-
crucial fields.

> >That is your scientific opinion? Once again, we scratch the surface of a
>mountain biker and find them to be unable to defend their activities
rationa >, >and hence fall quickly into ad hominem attacks on the
MESSENGER.

If anyone is evading, it is you.  You have resorted to trying to refute this
ecologist by calling him names and accusing him of being in on some
conspiracy because he rides a damn bike.  He wouldn't have gotten into the
field if he didn't care deeply about nature.  I seriousl;y doubt he decided
he would get a college education and become an ecologist so he can justify
his hobby.  Give us all a break please and spare us the paranoid
justifications for your obvious grudge against mountain bikers.


> >- You are mixing philosphy and science, and you have done it so much,
you >- can no longer tease out what is philosphy and what is science.

> >I do know the difference, and I can detect pseudo-science used to
rationaliz >obvious damage to the environment. Such "scientists" are
usually "owned" by >company or government agency.

Oh please...and you must be owned by someone who cannot get this weird
theory published in a reputable scientific journal.  The only
"pseudo-science" is the science rejected by the scientific community.


> >- It is amusing and sad that you do think you know what biodiversity is.
>- Read some genetics text books to get a better understanding.

> >I have, but I don't parrot the ones that contain misinformation.

> > The >- people you claim do not know are the ones you are gleaning your
>- information from.

> >- Scientist tire from lay people (particularly lay people with an
agenda) >- misquoting them and then have these lay people turn on them when
they >- try and correct there faulty reasoning.  You are not the first to
twist >- biological concepts to fit your preconcieved notions and
unfortunately >- you will not be the last.

> >Sounds like you are talking about yourself. > >  Take a word of advise,
your ideas about >- biodiversity are way off base, I suggest you should
broaden your >- horizons and read several general biology texts, some
journals like >- Science, Nature, Ecology, Journal of Wildlife Management,
Journal of >- Mammalogy, American Naturalist, Conservation Biology, etc. >

>I do.

> >- Again the loss of a few individuals (natural or human caused)
will have >- no measureable affect on biodiveristy (genetic variability) of
an area. > >Reread my previous posts. I am tired of explaining why you are
wrong. It is >quite possible for an individual to contain UNIQUE genes
whose loss will >constitute a very serious loss of biodiversity. > >-  This
assumes that the population in question does not consist of only >- a few
individuals.  Genetic variability is largely controled by the >- size of
the population.  Unless the population severely bottlenecks as >- did the
cheetah, genetic variablity will not be affected in any >- measurable way.
some species evolved in a changing environment and >- naturally go through
wild flucuations or cylcles like voles.  These are >- "r" selected species
that track environmental conditions and usually >- have an amazing
reproductive capacity.  These changing populations do >- not seem to have
any adverse affect on their genetic variability.

That about sums it up.

kelly.cowan@ebbs.cts.com