In article , 
amacmil304@aol.com writes
>On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 17:35:10 +0000, Malcolm
> wrote:
>
>>
>>In article ,
>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>>On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 12:24:31 +0000, Malcolm
>>> wrote:
>>>>In article ,
>>>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>>>>On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 10:08:05 +0000, Malcolm
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>In article ,
>>>>>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>>>>>>On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 08:27:47 +0000, Malcolm
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>The white-tailed eagles in Norway are living in the same environment as
>>>>>>>>the west of Scotland, which explains why the birds brought from Norway
>>>>>>>>are flourishing.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>No they're not.  Norway has a different environment to Scotland,
>>>>>>>different species regarded as native by fake conservationists and a
>>>>>>>different climate.   So the WTEs have evolved in a different
>>>>>>>environment which completely undermines your argument that native
>>>>>>>species should evolve within their own environment for thousands of
>>>>>>>years.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>I'm afraid that your lack of knowledge about white-tailed eagles is
>>>>>>letting you down and allowing you to make ill-informed statements such
>>>>>>as the above. Please indicate the differences in the environment between
>>>>>>western coastal Norway and western coastal Scotland which you believe
>>>>>>are important in support of your claims.
>>>>>
>>>>>Colder climate. Different species affecting the environment in which
>>>>>the WHT has evolved.
>>>>>
>>>>That might, but only might, apply if the WTE was a species which was
>>>>completely unable to adapt in even minor ways to its environment and
>>>>only occurred on the Norway coast. However, it doesn't apply because the
>>>>WTE occurs from the Mediterranean to well above the arctic circle and
>>>>from the Atlantic to the Pacific and so is clearly highly adaptable and
>>>>perfectly suited to be moved from Norway to Scotland, which share a
>>>>great many environmental characteristics.
>>>>
>>>
>>>But the fact it can adapt is not the point.
>>>
>>Of course it is the point.
>
>Nonsense.  They haven't evolved in the UK.
>
So what? They have evolved to be adaptable, including in the UK.

>>
>>>Each of the above populations have evolved in different
>>>environments.and not in the UK. You've argued many times
>>>that native species must evolve within their own
>>>ecosystem/environment.
>>>
>>No, Angus, I haven't, because your understanding of the environment and
>>evolution is so limited.
>
>I understand perfectly that what you're saying is that it doesn't
>matter where they've evolved.
>
Duh!  Your lack of understanding really does show you up, Angus.

>
>>
>>>If not, then you whole idea of a species being native because it
>>>evolves with its own environment over thousands of years is fake.
>>>
>>Nonsense. We are discussing a very small number of species which, having
>>become either very rare or extinct in the UK, have been either boosted
>>or re-established by bringing in small numbers of the same species from
>>elsewhere in their range.
>
>Sure we are. But you can't re-establish animals that have not been
>established here in the first place.  They've been established and
>evolved elsewhere.
>
Your lack of understanding just shows you up, Angus.

>>All the species concerned can be seen to be
>>very adaptable (through evolution, naturally) to a wide range of
>>environmental conditions.
>
>Rubbish. Adaptability has nothing to do with evolution.  Ask any grey
>squirrel :-))
>
That claim, that adaptability has nothing to do with evolution is about 
the clearest demonstration that you don't understand what you are 
talking about that you could have possibly given. Sadly for you, your 
lack of understanding means that you probably won't ever realise why.

>> Why are you finding it so difficult to
>>understand that because the white-tailed eagle thrives in the
>>Mediterranean area as well as north of the arctic circle this
>>demonstrates that it has evolved to be highly adaptable.
>
>Different populations in different environments.
>
Showing massive adaptability.

>>The conditions
>>between the west coast of Norway and the west coast of Scotland differ
>>hardly at all compared with those between the Mediterranean and the
>>arctic. Have you ever been to the areas of the Norwegian coast where the
>>WTEs came from?
>>
>
>They don't need to be compared. You have already admitted they are
>different.  Are you now saying they're not?
>
So you haven't ever been to the Norwegian coast. How unsurprising that 
you write as if you are knowledgeable about it.

>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>You are your kind are a bunch of opportunists - you make it up as you
>>>>>>>go along.  And you can't even agree among yourselves; hence you
>>>>>>>disagree with some of the definitions of "native species"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>The whole concept is just too ridiculous and has nothing to do with
>>>>>>>scientific facts.  It's to do with exploiting these birds for
>>>>>>>tourism.- nothing more.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>I don't expect you to either understand or accept the concept of
>>>>>>reintroducing species that man has driven to extinction or
>>>>>>near-extinction.
>>>>>
>>>>>Not from foreign countries where the environment is different. By your
>>>>>own argument this shows up the fraudulent concept of introductions.
>>>>>
>>>>>Once more you have shown the concept to be garbage.
>>>>
>>>>See above about adaptation. It appears that you know nothing about it
>>>>which leads you to make untenable statements such as the above.
>>>
>>>Quite the opposite, Malcolm.  A very real and pertinent statement.
>>>
>>>Adaptation has nothing to do with it.
>>>
>>Of *course* it does. Please do at least *try* to understand some basic
>>facts about wildlife.
>>
>
>Adaptability has nothing to do with being native.  What I understand
>is that your nativeness is complete nonsense.  You end up arguing
>against yourself and what I point that out you say I don't understand
>:-))
>
Adaptability has everything to do with the ability of the species to be 
re-established in the UK.


>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And you could say
>>>>>>>>>the same about grey squirrels that  "the conditions in the
>>>>>>>>>reintroduction locality to make sure that it is suitable in terms of
>>>>>>>>>climate, soils, land use, food availability, etc., etc.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>No, you couldn't. Grey squirrels were *introduced* here.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>So were reds.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>So what?
>>>>>
>>>>>So they were introduced.
>>>>>
>>>>A small number from Scandinavia are recorded as having been released at
>>>>Dunkeld in the 19th century.
>>>>
>>>
>>>So they were introduced after being shot to oblivion.
>>>
>>There were still some left here.
>>
>
>Not according to what I've been told.
>
Well, it is according to what I've read and been told.
>
>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>There were no grey squirrels here until man introduced them
>>>>>>from North America. There have always been red squirrels here since the
>>>>>>last Ice Age.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Even if that were true, which there is little or no evidence to
>>>>>support it, red squirrels form Scandinavia have not been here for
>>>>>thousands of years.  They evolved in a different environment and were
>>>>>introduced by man here later than the greys.
>>>>>
>>>>See above about adaptation. You seem to think that the "environment" is
>>>>completely different in different places and therefore the animals of
>>>>the same species in the two places will be completely different. Neither
>>>>belief is correct.
>>>>
>>>
>>>It doesn't matter whether they're different or not.  They're not
>>>"native" by your own argument - they have not evolved here.
>>>
>>The species evolved here and then, in the case of the WTE, though not
>>the red squirrel, died out. The species is now established again as a
>>native breeder.
>>
>
>But the birds have evolved for thousands of years in a different
>environment and not in this country and you have the cheek to call
>them native to the UK    What rubbish!
>
The species is native to the UK, Angus. This is just you trying to say 
that individuals are somehow not the same as the species they
belong to. This just shows up your lack of understanding,

>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>And you can't re-introduce something if it wasn't introduced in the
>>>>>>>>>first place.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>You are, as is your wont, trying to alter the accepted meaning of the
>>>>>>>>word.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Another basic flaw in the thinking of the fakes.  What did I say about
>>>>>>>the dregs of academia being in your industry?  They spout before they
>>>>>>>think!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Sloppy terminology backing up sloppy science.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>No, Angus, just you practising your well-recorded ability to change the
>>>>>>meanings of words. I seem to recall that you tried and failed to
>>>>>>convince a judge to accept your meaning over the accepted one.
>>>>>
>>>>>I stand by everything I said which is all recorded on Google and the
>>>>>term I used is used frequently to describe the killing of wildlife in
>>>>>national newspapers.  But it's made little difference to me or my
>>>>>websites :-))
>>>>>
>>>>Of course you stand by it, Angus. You would hate to lose face by
>>>>admitting you were wrong even though you lost the court case. We all
>>>>understand that.
>>>
>>>But I wasn't wrong and I believe at least one witness committed
>>>perjury by lying at the hearing.
>>>
>>>However, as it made little difference to me, I saw no point in taking
>>>the matter back to court.
>>>
>>Angus, no-one could care less that you keep on claiming "but I wasn't
>>wrong". No-one would expect anything different from you, for the reasons
>>I've given. You've just reinforced what I said.
>
>I couldn't care less either.  It wasn't me who brought it up. It seems
>you care more than me :-))
>
I think it only right to remind readers where you are coming from and 
that you have a history of trying to make words mean something other 
than their accepted meanings.

-- 
Malcolm