Actually, after looking back at the article that you quoted, there are
several subtle qualifiers which the writers used to couch their
conclusions...
(emphasis added)
"More recent studies of natural communiteis have largely confirmed
the hypothesis that predators MAY actually increase the number of
different species that can live in a habitat."
"Only a few experiments similar to Paine's have
been performed and so ONE MUST BE CAUTIOUS about applying this
conclusion
to all communities."
"As a result MANY of these areas are much
less rich in species than they were under heavy 'predation'."
and what was not reported but admitted by Smith...
"With the demise of the
rabbits, there was a SPECTACULAR INCREASE in the growth of grass and a
PROFUSION of perennial species whose existence had never been recorded."
The writer's agenda was to prove the stated hypothesis... i.e. that
predators increased the number of species that can live in a habitat. I
did not state or imply that their agenda was to prove evolution.
Actually, after discovering the qualifiers and the one omission I don't
think that the report adds any thing of substance to an evolution
argument, although I can see where one would try. This is not
oppugnatum ad hominems, at least I don't think so! :-)
--------------------------------------------
For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the
dead.
For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
1Corinthians 15:22-23
--------------------------------------------
Paul Durham
Oakland, Maryland
pdd@gcc.cc.md.us
to: IN:GRMorton@gnn.com
cc: IN:evolution@calvin.edu