Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict? Re: [ECOLOG-L] evolution for non-scientists textbook
How about: Science is trying to discover the world as it is, religion is trying to develop a world as it should become. Warren W. Aney (503) 246-8613 -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ecolo...@listserv.umd.edu] On Behalf Of William Silvert Sent: Wednesday, 12 May, 2010 14:50 To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict? Re: [ECOLOG-L] evolution for non-scientists textbook My preferred definition is that science is about seeing the world as it is, religion about seeing the world as we would like it to be. A good example is the Copernican revolution. Copernicus and Galileo showed that the earth was not the centre of the universe, but the church insisted that it was and that man was god's favoured creation. Bill Silvert - Original Message - From: Wayne Tyson landr...@cox.net To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: quarta-feira, 12 de Maio de 2010 19:49 Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict? Re: [ECOLOG-L] evolution for non-scientists textbook Science is about questioning one's assumptions; religion is about what's right and what's wrong.
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict?
The world as it should become? Overpopulated because many religions oppose birth control? So many religious ideas are based on assumptions about how the world is now that they oppose any actions that would make the future better. James Watt was Reagan's Secretary of the Interior and expressed the view that it was only necessary to conserve resources until the Lord returned, although he did admit that since he didn't know how soon that would be, perhaps we should conserve enough resources to keep the intermediate generations going. There are certainly some religions based on the idea of continuous improvement in the world, but this is not how I would characterise all of them, or even the majority of them. Bill Silvert - Original Message - From: Warren W. Aney a...@coho.net To: 'William Silvert' cien...@silvert.org; ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: quinta-feira, 13 de Maio de 2010 4:18 Subject: RE: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict? Re: [ECOLOG-L] evolution for non-scientists textbook How about: Science is trying to discover the world as it is, religion is trying to develop a world as it should become. Warren W. Aney (503) 246-8613 -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ecolo...@listserv.umd.edu] On Behalf Of William Silvert Sent: Wednesday, 12 May, 2010 14:50 To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict? Re: [ECOLOG-L] evolution for non-scientists textbook My preferred definition is that science is about seeing the world as it is, religion about seeing the world as we would like it to be.
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Ecology Terminology and associated phenomena Colonizing species etc
Are horses exotic or native if they evolved in North America and then subsequently reintroduced? == Randy Bangert On May 12, 2010, at 3:56 PM, James J. Roper wrote: Good question Martin, But, yes, I would remove all of those from any and all natural settings, and keep them on farms, just like you suggested. As for the animals, they are massive conservation problems in their own rights, so I won't go into why we should all be vegetarian - :-| As you say, keep them from running wild. Which reminds me, have any of you seen those pictures of the record sized boars (domestic pigs) that were shot in Georgia a few years ago? Those are certainly an ecological disaster! Cheers, Jim On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 13:57, Martin Meiss mme...@gmail.com wrote: Really, Mr. Roper (the formality is to avoid confusion between the two Jims)? You would favor removal of such exotics from North America as wheat, apples, oranges, horses, cattle, goats, pigs, and honeybees? Wouldn't you settle for trying to keep them from running wild, rather than eliminating them from farmland because they are exotic? Martin 2010/5/12 James J. Roper jjro...@gmail.com Jim, I hope my (perhaps) subtle tongue in cheek comments about invasives has not confused the issue. I completely agree that human caused introductions are to be avoided at all costs, and active eradication of exotics should be undertaken as a default position until a well-developed argument suggests otherwise. As Elton documented long ago, invasives are problems, both ecologically and financially. States and countries spends billions of dollars each year trying to control many exotics. While I think that we can find examples for both, innocuous exotics and maladapted natives, those examples do not support any position taken on exotics. I would also venture to state that even if statistical tests could not identify an exotic, that does NOT mean the exotic is inconsequential. I think in this case, we should assume guilty until proven innocent. After all, nature took millions of years to come up with what we have today, while we can screw that up in less than a decade. We do not have the information required to decide whether an exotic matters in some philosophical moral sense. We should assume that it is a problem, however, as the best default position - avoid introductions at all costs, eradicate when possible. If we use a moral position, that position can be argued endlessly. If we use a pragmatic position - introductions are uncontrolled experiments and uncontrolled experiments should always be avoided because we cannot know how to predict the outcome (and much less control it) - then until someone can really show how great uncontolled experiments are, no argument will be effective against it. Sincerely, Jim James Crants wrote on 12-May-10 13:02: Jim and others, Your last sentence converges on the point I was trying to make: if you compared native species, as a group, against exotic species, as a group, you would find statistically significant ecological differences (ie, trends), even though you would also find numerous exceptions to those trends. A statistically significant trend is not negated by the existence of outliers, any more than the tendency for men to be taller than women is negated by the fact that many women are taller than many men.
[ECOLOG-L] EcoTone: When habitat destruction is extremely subtle
When it comes to habitat destruction, startling events like oil spills and deforestation are certain to grab the headlines. Yet as a new study in the journal Animal Conservation shows, sometimes habitat destruction can be so subtle that it passes under the eyes of all but the most astute scientists. David Pike and fellow researchers from the University of Sydney look at the case of reptiles in outcrops and find that people moving rocks less than 30 centimeters out of place can ruin the habitat for species like the endangered broad-headed snake that shelter in narrow crevices. Read more and comment at http://www.esa.org/esablog/conservation/when-habitat-destruction-is-extremely-subtle/.
[ECOLOG-L] Fish modeling contract support, EPA, Corvallis OR
The US Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Research and Development’s National Health and Environmental Effects Laboratory’s Western Ecology Division is seeking a student contractor (student or recent graduate) to support modeling of stream and landscape attributes as influenced by projected human activities, and subsequent projected effects on fish assemblages. Closing date: May 31, 2010 For complete details please visit http://www.epa.gov/oamrtpnc/q1000149/index.htm
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict? Re: [ECOLOG-L] evolution for non-scientists textbook
For those of you who do not think that this debate is divisive, just check out the gubernatorial campaign in Alabama. Both sides are going against evolution to gain supporters! On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 00:18, Warren W. Aney a...@coho.net wrote: How about: Science is trying to discover the world as it is, religion is trying to develop a world as it should become. Warren W. Aney (503) 246-8613 [image: S-CanITeachEvolution.gif] S-CanITeachEvolution.gif
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Ecology Terminology and associated phenomena Colonizing species etc
You do remember that the horses that went extinct in North America are not the same ones that came back with the Spaniards? So, yes, they are introduced. However, horses are not really the issue with introduced species, although they are causing animated debates in the few states that have feral herds. On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 10:16, Randy K Bangert bangr...@isu.edu wrote: Are horses exotic or native if they evolved in North America and then subsequently reintroduced? == Randy Bangert
[ECOLOG-L] Ecology Terminology and associated phenomena Colonizing species etc
Under the terminology and definitions promoted by leading invasion
biologists including David Richardson and Petr Pyšek, 'alien' species and
their subset 'invasive' species are not routinely identified by their
ecological characteristics. Aliens are identified by subtracting historical
local biotas (meaning species lists) from recent local biotas, then deciding
which positive bits of the difference can plausibly be attributed to
dispersal via human agency. Invasive species are a subset of aliens: those
with the capacity to spread, identified simply by having done so,
somewhere.
Native species are literally those for which we have no record or
'suspicion' of a history of human dispersal. The sole criterion of
nativeness is therefore absence of evidence. Nativeness has nothing to do
with relative fitness, complexity of interactions, diversity yielding
stability, stability yielding diversity or anything else ecological. It has
only to do with reifying a particular view of humans and 'nature'.
On that basis, numerous studies have concluded that 'natives' and 'aliens'
are ecologically different (or not). At best they have shown some ways that
two different species or populations are ecologically different (or not) in
a specific context. That context is often barely defined in ways that
mainly reiterate the labels 'native' and 'alien'.
Comparing 'invading' species with established ones ('native' or 'alien')
confirms that a population new to some context is measurably growing and
spreading, while one less new isn't. The new one is exhibiting fitness under
prevailing conditions. That might (or might not) affect the fitness of
longer established species in in a discretely measurable way. There's no
reason they should be similar.
If we manage to demonstrate a strong effect, we still have to compare it to
a stipulated preference before declaring it desirable (or not). Even claims
about changing rates of change require stipulations. Departure from an
inferred previous rate carries no message in itself. Deciding change is
happening too fast for comfort is more about comfort than ecology.
Consensus on that score is still consensus about comfort.
Endorsing the general claim alien invasive species threaten [something]
stipulates a preference. Such endorsements routinely appear in the
introductions of peer-reviewed papers. Anthropologists or sociologists of
science might call the phrase a disciplinary talisman or password meaning
something besides the sum of its parts. Unfortunately, it also indicates
that the authors and reviewers of such articles share a significant
confirmation bias.
It isn't my place to dictate how anyone should feel about the current (or
any historic) array of human influences on biogeography - but those
influences are prevailing facts of life on this planet. Nor is it mine to
dictate whether anyone should promote fear and loathing of 'aliens' or
'invasives' with inflammatory caricatures. But it is my place to warn that
the bulk of modern peer-reviewed literature regarding the outcomes of
human-mediated dispersal is 'tragically flawed'– by the fact that invasion
biology's currency is vehement, almost competitive antipathy to its objects
of study. The defining anti stance makes invasion biology intuitively and
emotionally (thus politically and bureaucratically) appealing. But it also
makes it scientifically unsustainable.
The situation is becoming so obviously silly and overblown that
environmental journalists have begun contacting me to discuss their
misgivings and explore the issues, rather than asking for quotable quotes.
Think about it.
Matthew K Chew
Assistant Research Professor
Arizona State University School of Life Sciences
ASU Center for Biology Society
PO Box 873301
Tempe, AZ 85287-3301 USA
Tel 480.965.8422
Fax 480.965.8330
mc...@asu.edu or anek...@gmail.com
http://cbs.asu.edu/people/profiles/chew.php
http://asu.academia.edu/MattChew
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Ecology Terminology and associated phenomena Colonizing species etc
Matt has important points. 1. Alien is from somewhere else (that is, it's recent evolutionary history does not include its current location) and natives are from the place where they reside. AFTER that definition, we come to think that aliens are different than residents, and we often find they are (not surprisingly) and are not. Many marine species have unknown historical ranges, so we have no idea where thare are from, and we call those cryptogenic (hidden origins). 2. Whether organisms are bad for being alien is a judgement call, and subjective. Sure, we can say that they cost money, but that only means that they inconvenience us in some way - still subjective. Sure we can say that they change community dynamics, but does the community care? If evolution were allowed to run its course, I am sure that we would all agree than in another million years or so, all the current aliens will have become natives (adapted for where they are, and fitting - in some way - in the community at that time). Thus, the VALUE statements about aliens and invasives are invariably subjective. 3. Politics is about appealing to emotion to justify getting money (and science is often politics). The trend that this breeds is to inflate the value of whatever it is that we want money for. So, how do we justify spending billions on invasive species control? Economically, not scientifically. My objective, scientific reasons for justifying the removal of invasives and alien species are, in fact, subjective. After all, even Elton said it well, although subectively - and I paraphrase - the continued introductions of species will have the net effect of reducing biodiversity, simplifying interactions in nature, and making the world a less interesting place. I can see a future where ecologists study how introduced species have adapted to their adopted homes, how new interactions evolve in communities dominated by introduced species, how biodiversity changes over time with introductions and extinctions. We will have a whole new science of biogeography - rather than Hubbell's Unified Neutral Theory of Biodiversity and Biogeography we will have someone's Unified Neutral Theory if Biodiversity due to Introductions and Extinctions. I can't help but (subjectively) think that such a place will be much poorer than our natural world of today (and I recognize how much poorer our natural world of today is compared to that of Darwin, for example). Cheers, Jim Matt Chew wrote on 13-May-10 11:59: Under the terminology and definitions promoted by leading invasion biologists including David Richardson and Petr Pyšek, 'alien' species and their subset 'invasive' species are not routinely identified by their ecological characteristics. Aliens are identified by subtracting historical local biotas (meaning species lists) from recent local biotas, then deciding which positive bits of the difference can plausibly be attributed to dispersal via human agency. Invasive species are a subset of aliens: those with the capacity to spread, identified simply by having done so, somewhere.
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Ecology Terminology and associated phenomena Colonizing species etc
I would argue the answer to this question is not so cut and dry. Recent genetic evidence paints a more complicated story, and suggests quite close relationship - at least genetically. Weinstock et al. 2005. PLOS Biology Evolution, Systematics, and Phylogeography of Pleistocene Horses in the New World: A Molecular Perspective The rich fossil record of horses has made them a classic example of evolutionary processes. However, while the overall picture of equid evolution is well known, the details are surprisingly poorly understood, especially for the later Pliocene and Pleistocene, c. 3 million to 0.01 million years (Ma) ago, and nowhere more so than in the Americas. There is no consensus on the number of equid species or even the number of lineages that existed in these continents. Likewise, the origin of the endemic South American genus Hippidion is unresolved, as is the phylogenetic position of the “stilt-legged” horses of North America. Using ancient DNA sequences, we show that, in contrast to current models based on morphology and a recent genetic study, Hippidion was phylogenetically close to the caballine (true) horses, with origins considerably more recent than the currently accepted date of c. 10 Ma. Furthermore, we show that stilt-legged horses, commonly regarded as Old World migrants related to the hemionid asses of Asia, were in fact an endemic North American lineage. Finally, our data suggest that there were fewer horse species in late Pleistocene North America than have been named on morphological grounds. Both caballine and stilt-legged lineages may each have comprised a single, wide-ranging species. On May 13, 2010, at 10:12 AM, James J. Roper wrote: You do remember that the horses that went extinct in North America are not the same ones that came back with the Spaniards? So, yes, they are introduced. However, horses are not really the issue with introduced species, although they are causing animated debates in the few states that have feral herds. On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 10:16, Randy K Bangert bangr...@isu.edumailto:bangr...@isu.edu wrote: Are horses exotic or native if they evolved in North America and then subsequently reintroduced? == Randy Bangert C. Josh Donlan MA PhD Director, Advanced Conservation Strategies | http://www.advancedconservation.org Fellow, Cornell University | http://www.eeb.cornell.edu/donlan M: +1 (607) 227-9768 (GMT-6) E: jdon...@advancedconservation.orgmailto:jdon...@advancedconservation.org P: P.O. Box 1201 | Midway, Utah 84049 USA u
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Ecology Terminology and associated phenomena Colonizing species etc
I don't know that subjectivity is necessarily a bad thing (of course, that is a subjective judgement!), as long as we recognize that we do certain things based on preferences and define/defend what those preferences are. I suppose the problem is that not everyone will have the same preferences. Where things get dangerous is if we misconstrue our subjective preferences as objective facts. Unfortunately, confusion between our subjective preferences (or anti-exotic biases) and the objectively demonstrated impacts of exotic species on ecosystems has sometimes found its way into the scientific literature (e.g., hearsay on the negative effects of tamarisk treated as scientific fact... as Matt Chew and others have demonstrated). Mark D. Dixon Assistant Professor Department of Biology University of South Dakota Vermillion, SD 57069 Phone: (605) 677-6567 Fax: (605) 677-6557 Email: mark.di...@usd.edu -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ecolo...@listserv.umd.edu] On Behalf Of James J. Roper Sent: Thursday, May 13, 2010 11:20 AM To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Ecology Terminology and associated phenomena Colonizing species etc Matt has important points. 1. Alien is from somewhere else (that is, it's recent evolutionary history does not include its current location) and natives are from the place where they reside. AFTER that definition, we come to think that aliens are different than residents, and we often find they are (not surprisingly) and are not. Many marine species have unknown historical ranges, so we have no idea where thare are from, and we call those cryptogenic (hidden origins). 2. Whether organisms are bad for being alien is a judgement call, and subjective. Sure, we can say that they cost money, but that only means that they inconvenience us in some way - still subjective. Sure we can say that they change community dynamics, but does the community care? If evolution were allowed to run its course, I am sure that we would all agree than in another million years or so, all the current aliens will have become natives (adapted for where they are, and fitting - in some way - in the community at that time). Thus, the VALUE statements about aliens and invasives are invariably subjective. 3. Politics is about appealing to emotion to justify getting money (and science is often politics). The trend that this breeds is to inflate the value of whatever it is that we want money for. So, how do we justify spending billions on invasive species control? Economically, not scientifically. My objective, scientific reasons for justifying the removal of invasives and alien species are, in fact, subjective. After all, even Elton said it well, although subectively - and I paraphrase - the continued introductions of species will have the net effect of reducing biodiversity, simplifying interactions in nature, and making the world a less interesting place. I can see a future where ecologists study how introduced species have adapted to their adopted homes, how new interactions evolve in communities dominated by introduced species, how biodiversity changes over time with introductions and extinctions. We will have a whole new science of biogeography - rather than Hubbell's Unified Neutral Theory of Biodiversity and Biogeography we will have someone's Unified Neutral Theory if Biodiversity due to Introductions and Extinctions. I can't help but (subjectively) think that such a place will be much poorer than our natural world of today (and I recognize how much poorer our natural world of today is compared to that of Darwin, for example). Cheers, Jim Matt Chew wrote on 13-May-10 11:59: Under the terminology and definitions promoted by leading invasion biologists including David Richardson and Petr Pyšek, 'alien' species and their subset 'invasive' species are not routinely identified by their ecological characteristics. Aliens are identified by subtracting historical local biotas (meaning species lists) from recent local biotas, then deciding which positive bits of the difference can plausibly be attributed to dispersal via human agency. Invasive species are a subset of aliens: those with the capacity to spread, identified simply by having done so, somewhere.
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Ecology Terminology and associated phenomena Colonizing species etc
For Phragmites, there was an assumption that it was evil and lots of money spent on removal projects long before we had studied its impacts on marsh ecology, which are not all negative. I don't know that subjectivity is necessarily a bad thing (of course, that is a subjective judgement!), as long as we recognize that we do certain things based on preferences and define/defend what those preferences are. I suppose the problem is that not everyone will have the same preferences. Where things get dangerous is if we misconstrue our subjective preferences as objective facts. Unfortunately, confusion between our subjective preferences (or anti-exotic biases) and the objectively demonstrated impacts of exotic species on ecosystems has sometimes found its way into the scientific literature (e.g., hearsay on the negative effects of tamarisk treated as scientific fact... as Matt Chew and others have demonstrated). Mark D. Dixon Assistant Professor Department of Biology University of South Dakota Vermillion, SD 57069 Phone: (605) 677-6567 Fax: (605) 677-6557 Email: mark.di...@usd.edu -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ecolo...@listserv.umd.edu] On Behalf Of James J. Roper Sent: Thursday, May 13, 2010 11:20 AM To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Ecology Terminology and associated phenomena Colonizing species etc Matt has important points. 1. Alien is from somewhere else (that is, it's recent evolutionary history does not include its current location) and natives are from the place where they reside. AFTER that definition, we come to think that aliens are different than residents, and we often find they are (not surprisingly) and are not. Many marine species have unknown historical ranges, so we have no idea where thare are from, and we call those cryptogenic (hidden origins). 2. Whether organisms are bad for being alien is a judgement call, and subjective. Sure, we can say that they cost money, but that only means that they inconvenience us in some way - still subjective. Sure we can say that they change community dynamics, but does the community care? If evolution were allowed to run its course, I am sure that we would all agree than in another million years or so, all the current aliens will have become natives (adapted for where they are, and fitting - in some way - in the community at that time). Thus, the VALUE statements about aliens and invasives are invariably subjective. 3. Politics is about appealing to emotion to justify getting money (and science is often politics). The trend that this breeds is to inflate the value of whatever it is that we want money for. So, how do we justify spending billions on invasive species control? Economically, not scientifically. My objective, scientific reasons for justifying the removal of invasives and alien species are, in fact, subjective. After all, even Elton said it well, although subectively - and I paraphrase - the continued introductions of species will have the net effect of reducing biodiversity, simplifying interactions in nature, and making the world a less interesting place. I can see a future where ecologists study how introduced species have adapted to their adopted homes, how new interactions evolve in communities dominated by introduced species, how biodiversity changes over time with introductions and extinctions. We will have a whole new science of biogeography - rather than Hubbell's Unified Neutral Theory of Biodiversity and Biogeography we will have someone's Unified Neutral Theory if Biodiversity due to Introductions and Extinctions. I can't help but (subjectively) think that such a place will be much poorer than our natural world of today (and I recognize how much poorer our natural world of today is compared to that of Darwin, for example). Cheers, Jim Matt Chew wrote on 13-May-10 11:59: Under the terminology and definitions promoted by leading invasion biologists including David Richardson and Petr Pyšek, 'alien' species and their subset 'invasive' species are not routinely identified by their ecological characteristics. Aliens are identified by subtracting historical local biotas (meaning species lists) from recent local biotas, then deciding which positive bits of the difference can plausibly be attributed to dispersal via human agency. Invasive species are a subset of aliens: those with the capacity to spread, identified simply by having done so, somewhere.
[ECOLOG-L] Postdoctoral research in watershed science, hydrologic modeling; USEPA-National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Cincinnati OH
Dear Ecolog folk, Although the successful candidate will focus on using high-resolution hydrometric data to develop rainfall-runoff models and study impacts of green infrastructure practices on urban hydrologic cycles, the comprehensive nature of the Shepherd Creek project and other related environmental management research efforts will afford numerous opportunities for collaborative work in other aspects of watershed science. Here is the announcement with details on the position and benefits: http://www.epa.gov/NRMRL/jobs/nrmrl10004.html Here is a link to a comprehensive report on the main project: http://www.epa.gov/nrmrl/pubs/600r08129/600r08129.pdf Keep in mind that this particular position can consider only US citizens, and the application period ends June 14 2010. Feel free to contact me directly for further information. Bill Shuster, PhD Research Hydrologist Sustainable Environments Branch, ML498 National Risk Management Research Laboratory Office of Research and Development United States Environmental Protection Agency 26 W. Martin Luther King Drive Cincinnati, OH 45268 513-569-7244 (desk) 513-487-2511 (fax) shuster.will...@epa.gov
Re: [ECOLOG-L] evolution for non-scientists textbook
For many students, particularly nonmajors, the history of life is far more exciting than the details of how evolution works. Stanley's textbook _Earth Systems History_ is quite good, as is Dawkins _The Ancestor's Tale_ and Richard Fortey's book _Life_. (The latter is a bit dated, as it was published in 1992.) Actually, my favorite book on the subject is a children's book from the 1980s: _The Evolution Book_ by Sara Stein. You might want to keep a copy on hand for teaching ideas. Jane Shevtsov On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 9:08 AM, Madhusudan Katti mka...@csufresno.edu wrote: Just following up on my earlier suggestion, there is a positive review of The Tangled Bank in the recent American Biology Teacher: http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.1525/abt.2010.72.3.13 “For students of evolution or scholars who want to know the specifics about particular evolutionary processes, this is an excellent read. The fact that it is understandable to beginners and fascinating to scientists makes this book truly unique and valuable.” I would also recommend Carl Zimmer's excellent blog The Loom (http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom) as a companion to any course on evolution. I like some of the other suggestions in this thread as well, especially Sean Carroll's book. Coyne is very good too, and Dawkins new book is probably dependable in getting the students' attention (I haven't read it). The Selfish Gene is too old to be used as a general text for a course on evolution. Moreover, with Coyne and Dawkins, I'd worry about alienating some of the religious-minded students. I would hesitate to use those in a non-majors class here in the central valley of California, for example. In fact, I suspect that Coyne's book may have played a role in pushing one of my own students (a grad student no less!) away from Biology because the evidence/arguments in that book were too strong for this religious student to handle. Of course that end result was good in some ways, but it depends on what your goals are with the class. Besides, your audience in Princeton (presuming it hasn't changed in the decade since I was there) will be rather different from what I face here in Fresno - so your mileage may vary! __ Madhusudan Katti Assistant Professor of Vertebrate Biology Department of Biology, M/S SB 73 California State University, Fresno Fresno, CA 93740-8034 +1.559.278.2460 mka...@csufresno.edu http://www.reconciliationecology.org/ __ -- - Jane Shevtsov Ecology Ph.D. candidate, University of Georgia co-founder, www.worldbeyondborders.org Check out my blog, http://perceivingwholes.blogspot.comPerceiving Wholes The whole person must have both the humility to nurture the Earth and the pride to go to Mars. --Wyn Wachhorst, The Dream of Spaceflight
[ECOLOG-L] JOB: Research Ecologist (permanent): Invasive plant - insect interactions
Interdisciplinary: Research Ecologist/Entomologist, GS-0408/0414-12/13 Salary Range of $68,809.00 106,369.00 per year The United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Northern Plains Agricultural Research Laboratory, Pest Management Research Unit in Sidney, Montana is seeking a permanent full-time Research Ecologist/ Entomologist as a lead investigator in classical biological control of invasive plants of the Northern Great Plains. The research focuses on plant and insect ecology; plant-herbivore interactions; characterization of ecological factors affecting biological control agents (insects or other arthropods) and invasive weeds; host-specificity and efficacy studies of potential biological control agents; non-target effects of biocontrol on ecological communities; post-release efficacy studies; and long-term monitoring. For details and to apply, see http://www.usajobs.opm.gov/. Reference Job Announcement Number ARS-X10W-0124A. Applications must be postmarked by May 28, 2010. U.S. citizenship is required. This announcement has been amended to extend the closing date to May 28, 2010. USDA/ARS is an equal opportunity employer and provider.
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Ecology Terminology and associated phenomena Colonizing species etc
Whether natural or cultural, every species takes advantage of opportunities to disperses/migrate to colonize and multiply. And, when they colonize/invade a new place (mostly already occupied), other species that have already there before (e.g., native species) would be affected. Some may adjust, thrive, and advance, while others may become extinct. Eventually, a new ecological community establishes, until another species invade/colonize or environmental condition changes. This is what every species does. Every species has some kind of dispersal mechanisms. Ecological community species interactions/compositions and ecosystem processes are dynamic and ephemeral, while our some of ecological disciplines are based on static perspective where set of communities and species interactions are static, complete, and integral. Nothing wrong with this. Within a limited time frame, they really can be considered static. For instance, many textbook describes the US southeastern oak-hickory forest as primary/virgin/old growth forest, but in reality, the forest was originally chestnut forest before chestnut blight wiped them out in 1900-40s. In decadal timeframe this forest is a stable oak-hickory forest, while in centuries timeframe it is an altered dynamic forest. Now, should chestnut be considered exotic species in this altered forest community? I don't think there is no objective measures to define what is considered I think it is imperative that to clearly state you own working (often subliminal) definition of native/non-native community/species in terms of time/spatial scale. Toshihide Hamachan Hamazaki, PhD : 濱崎俊秀：浜ちゃん Alaska Department of Fish Game Division of Commercial Fisheries 333 Raspberry Rd. Anchorage, Alaska 99518 Ph: 907-267-2158 Fax: 907-267-2442 Cell: 907-440-9934 E-mail: toshihide.hamaz...@alaska.gov
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict? Re: [ECOLOG-L] evolution for non-scientists textbook
Science is based on fact. Religion is based on faith. They don't mix. To illustrate. Let's say you have a deadly bacterial infection. Science, (based on fact) shows that the use of a wide spectrum antibiotic will take care of the infection. Religion (based on faith) tells you to pray to your god. Then, choose which path you take. Sarah Frias-Torres, Ph.D. http://independent.academia.edu/SarahFriasTorres Date: Wed, 12 May 2010 20:18:44 -0700 From: a...@coho.net Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict? Re: [ECOLOG-L] evolution for non-scientists textbook To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU How about: Science is trying to discover the world as it is, religion is trying to develop a world as it should become. Warren W. Aney (503) 246-8613 -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ecolo...@listserv.umd.edu] On Behalf Of William Silvert Sent: Wednesday, 12 May, 2010 14:50 To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict? Re: [ECOLOG-L] evolution for non-scientists textbook My preferred definition is that science is about seeing the world as it is, religion about seeing the world as we would like it to be. A good example is the Copernican revolution. Copernicus and Galileo showed that the earth was not the centre of the universe, but the church insisted that it was and that man was god's favoured creation. Bill Silvert - Original Message - From: Wayne Tyson landr...@cox.net To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: quarta-feira, 12 de Maio de 2010 19:49 Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict? Re: [ECOLOG-L] evolution for non-scientists textbook Science is about questioning one's assumptions; religion is about what's right and what's wrong.
