On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 21:32:33 +0000 (UTC), Tim Tyler 
wrote:

>r norman  wrote or quoted:
>> Tim Tyler  wrote:
>> >r norman  wrote or quoted:
>> >> On Sat, 24 Apr 2004 04:46:39 +0000 (UTC), Tim Tyler
 wrote:
>
>> >> >Because of global competion for nutrients, organisms
do not have
>> >> >to be in the same environment or physical location to be in
>> >> >competition with one another.
>> >> >
>> >> >I.e. those resources that are tied up in the form of
forests should be 
>> >> >subtracted from the pool of resorces available for
forming bacteria.
>> 
>> >> Only in a tropical rain forest do
>> >> you find nutrients primarily tied up in multicellular organisms 
>> 
>> >there are *plenty* of other forests besides tropical rain forests.
>> >
>> >The world's largest forests are in Russia.  If you want to
>> >see forests, it is not to tropical zones - but to Siberia -
>> >that you should head.
>> 
>> By "nutrients", ecologists refer to limiting items like
nitrogen and
>> phosphorus, perhaps iron and other trace minerals.  These are the
>> factors that limit productivity. [...]
>
>"Nutrients" are sources of nutrition - of nourishment.
>
>Are you *sure* people are restricting the term to things that are in
>short supply?  Is there any reference supporting such a usage?
>
>> We already had a go-around where I agreed that eukaryotes had the 
>> majority of carbon biomass, but that is not considered a nutrient for 
>> which there is competition.
>
>I do not see why that is relevant.  Biomass is a simple enough
>concept.  Only weighing certain nutrients seems like an attempt at 
>confusing the issue.
>
>You seem to be arguing that - since prokaryotes fail to take full 
>advantage of the available carbon, carbon should be ignored in
>biomass calculations.  I don't see much sense in that.
>
>> I have never denied that there are large quantities of very large,
>> very "complex" organisms in virtually all of the
habitats I live in.
>> Virtually all of my friends and even some of my relatives are large
>> multicellular organisms.  All I am trying to convince you of is the
>> simple fact that we large, "complex", multicellular
organisms are not
>> "taking over" from the "simple" prokaryotes. 
They are here in
>> enormous numbers.  They have always been here, as long as life has
>> existed on earth.  And every indication is that they will continue to
>> be here as a major and often controlling factor in the biosphere for
>> as long as life persists on earth.
>
>Small organisms may well persist on life's fringes - in environments
>large organisms can't easily enter.
>

I don't know how worthwhile it is to keep rehashing the same old
differences of opinion.  You are the one who brought up the notion
that large eukaryotes were outcompeting the prokaryotes by tying up
available nutrients.  You said (Apr. 24) "Because of global competion
for nutrients, organisms do not have to be in the same environment or
physical location to be in competition with one another.  I.e. those
resources that are tied up in the form of forests should be 
subtracted from the pool of resorces available for forming bacteria."
The fact is that carbon is not at all a limiting nutrient about which
there is any real competition.  All autotrophs are capable of fixing
inorganic carbon which is abundant.  The real issue of competition
deals only with those resources which are limited.  That is why I
insist on focusing on nitrogen and phosphorus.  And in terms of these
two limiting nutrients, virtually all of the organic form is tied up
by prokaryotes.  The Whitman, Coleman and Wiebe paper previously cited
in this thread says that 90% of the N and P is tied up in prokaryotes.

You are entitled to your opinion about the future of life on earth.
However I still claim you are really incorrect about the past and
current status and role of prokaryotes in the total biosphere.
---
þ RIMEGate(tm)/RGXPost V1.14 at BBSWORLD * Info{at}bbsworld.com

---
 * RIMEGate(tm)V10.2áÿ* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
 * RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 4/28/04 5:41:42 PM