Quote
Quote
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. {snip}
How then do you propose to salvage Darwinian natural selection? Have you something to offer in place of fierce competition?
Please explain what your meaning of "Darwinian natural selection" is.

Natural selection still exists even in this situation. Some mice and lemmings are still born from the coupling of their parents. Those males and females had to compete in order to wind up with each other. Even the aggressive behavior is a trait that was selected for "naturally". What is happening in this situation that leads you to believe that natural selection went away.

Quote
Quote
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?
Since when is getting clarification the same thing as slamming? I've observed that you rely heavily on obfuscation, but I didn't know you had become one with it.
From dictionary.com
ob·fus·cate
1. to confuse, bewilder, or stupefy.
2. to make obscure or unclear: to obfuscate a problem with extraneous information.
3. to darken.

I was not intentionally trying to make anything obscure or to bewilder you. In fact I don't see my reply to you as doing any of that. I do however see your accusation that I was suggesting the scientists starved animals to rig their results, as obfuscation.

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