Quote
Quote
Quote
That the authors don't use the word "anticipate" has no bearing. Does the regulation kick in before starvation density is reached or after?
You read the studies, they say that most of the time the mechanism that causes the birth regulation to "kick in" is the increased population density. Apparently, the higher density of animals increases aggression (road rage during rush hour?) which cause fertility and the desire to mate to decrease. It is a mechanism that mimics anticipation of a starvation event by responding to increase in population density. It is interesting that in the study of mice, lemmings, and rats that it wasn't just the increase in the target species population density that triggered the response but also increases in other species (that interacted competitively with the target species) population density. Those other species would be in contact with the target species during competition for food, providing the same impact as an increase in the target species population density. Like a big crowd at the salad bar. It increased aggression.

So it is not actually anticipation of the starvation event that lead to reproduction reduction but the reaction to an event (increase in population density) that would have lead to the starvation event. The increase in aggressive behavior caused the population density to lower and avoid the starve off. So, in the case of these animals, their aggression in a crowded condition turns out to be a positive adaptation for their species.
If you want to quibble over this, go right ahead. Explain how we can differentiate between actual anticipation, and "mimicry" thereof. Explain how it makes a difference & salvages the Darwin/Malthus paradigm.

It doesn't salvage the Darwin/Malthus paradigm if that means that food availability is the only thing that directly causes population density limiting. Darwin may not be right in all cases but that doesn't mean he was completely wrong. You were the one who said that God forces a limit on population before the starvation phase. I was just pointing out the conclusions of the scientists on the cause of this population limiting behavior; an evolutionary development of aggressive behavior when in crowded situations (high population densities) that subsequently lowered birth rates. High population densities make competition for resources (food, shelter...etc) more fierce and thus increases aggression between individuals. I guess angry mice don't like to get it on.
Now if you want to believe that God, as the architect of evolution, caused this behavior to be selected for, then so be it. If you want to tell me that God watches the population densities of mice and then reaches down to mess with the little mouse hormones to make them less horny, then you will have to provide a little more than your say-so.

Quote
Quote
Some of these studies take place under controlled conditions where one food & water are assumed to be supplied. Do you suggest they're rigging the results by starving animals?
Quote
If that is what you got from my answer, you will have to show me where I misspoke because I did not say anything about "rigging the results".
Earlier you said.
Quote
The abstracts that you provided don't say that. In fact, there are indicators that the change in reproduction patterns are linked with resource stress. Less food per individual and other stresses seem to cause hormonal changes that decrease the fertility cycles.
It may be true that less food will trigger self-regulation, but I intend to make it clear that it isn't the only trigger found in nature. The lemming research has failed to find any resource shortage.
I already agreed that the only trigger was not food, besides I said "resource shortage" not just food shortage. Am I now supposed to be slammed for a statement that I already agreed was not entirely correct? Regardless, my last post stated that the trigger was population density causing aggressive behavior. Just because Darwin hadn't described all causal criteria for individual and species selection, doesn't make him wrong about everything else. If being wrong about one thing makes you wrong about everything then neither you nor I could be trusted to provide any correct information. Shoot, no one could. Good thing the world doesn't work that way.

A faith that connot survive collision with the truth is not worth many regrets. -- Arthur C. Clarke