Several people have called me to task for calling Patton's posting nonsense,
both on and off list, and I do regret introducing the kind of ad hominem
slur that is incompatible with good discussion. What he wrote was "Each
existing species on the planet is the result of millions of years of
intensive evolution and selection pressure. As I used to tell my high school
ecology students, each species has at least one secret that allows it to
occupy some unique niche. We have no idea which secrets will be important
today or tomorrow." and my reaction was based on disagreement with just
about every part of this post. Of course every living thing on the planet is
the result of millions (maybe billions) of years of evolution, even if it is
a sterile mutant. Every stone was formed millions of years ago. Every liter
of oil that we burn is the result of millions of years of formation. I do
not see how this is relevant.
As for the "secrets" that fit species into niches, I think that this
statement negates the achievements of decades of niche theory. I simply do
not feel that Patton's post reflects our current state of ecological
knowledge, and I think that his ecology students are being presented with a
poor picture of what we know about ecosystems.
I suggest that we think seriously about the consequences of any particular
species going extinct. I earlier referred to the ecological role of the
polar bear, if it should vanish the result would be a catastrophic change in
the polar ecosystem and there is nothing to replace it. But many other
species can quite easily be replaced. One of the greatest extinctions in
terms of potential ecological impact was the eradication of the earthworms
in many areas during the ice ages, but they were replaced by other species
of earthworms. I think that the idea that every species has equal uniqueness
is simply not valid.
William Silvert
