The results of a decadelong experiment, published in June, indicate
that biological diversity helps make ecosystems stable and productive.
(Conducted in the Cedar Creek Natural History Area in Min.)
Areas (planted) with more diverse
kinds of plants were both more productive and more stable.
"Plots with many species are much less prone to big dives in
productivity from year to year."
The statement does not give a list of what species are

I see this as more clues to life as the most stable reaction
to its specific environment.
Your conclusion does not logically follow from the data that you

THUS
Life is not a fluke origin event. It's the most stable
reaction of chemicals in that environment.
How does this follow your previous two statements?

Please note that Darwin pointed out the same fact in "Origin of
the Species," which was already well known by this time. The fact that
diverse ecosystems are more productive than less diverse ecosystems,
combined with the fact that no specific set of species was uniquely
stable, justified the hypothesis that natural selection maximizes
diversity.

The results of a decadelong experiment, published in June, indicate
that biological diversity helps make ecosystems stable and productive.
(Conducted in the Cedar Creek Natural History Area in Min.)
Areas (planted) with more diverse
kinds of plants were both more productive and more stable.
"Plots with many species are much less prone to big dives in
productivity from year to year."
The statement does not give a list of what species are
necessary for productivity. In fact, it strongly implies that the
specific selection of species is not important for productivity. A
plot of land in three geographically isolated areas could have
completely different set of species, but still have the same diversity
and therefore could have the same productivity. The particular set of
species found in any one of these areas is definitely a fluke.

I see this as more clues to life as the most stable reaction
to its specific environment.
Your conclusion does not logically follow from the data that you
initially presented. Dead and inanimate chemicals are more stable
still.
THUS
Life is not a fluke origin event. It's the most stable
reaction of chemicals in that environment.
How does this follow your previous two statements?
How is a stable reaction of chemicals less of a fluke than a
more stable reaction of chemicals?

Please note that Darwin pointed out the same fact in "Origin of
the Species," which was already well known by this time. The fact that
diverse ecosystems are more productive than less diverse ecosystems,
combined with the fact that no specific set of species was uniquely
stable, justified the hypothesis that natural selection maximizes
diversity.
A one mile square plot of land may contain a roughly million
types of organisms of a certain size range, but different plots may
contain a completely different set of one million organisms types.
Thus, the particular set of species in an environment is to some
extent a fluke. Finding a plot of land with one and only one species
of plant would be a fluke, even if that plant was extremely fit.
Natural selection determines a high level of diversity, which is what
is seen under natural conditions.

In Mirounga angustirostris (northern elephant seal), the very large=20
population was reduced greatly by hunters who were after their=20
blubber. In fact from about 1850 to 1880 they were thought to be=20
extinct. Around 1880 they discovered a small group of seals (40 or=20
50) on Guadalupe Island, about 150 miles off the coast of Baja=20
California.
=20
The Mexican government passed a new law to protect them -- later the=20
US government did the same.
=20
Today there are about 160,000 elephant seals in colonies on the west=20
coast from Baja to northern California. Their population is very=20
healthy -- they are not endangered.
=20
Of course, strange things could still happen. A new virus could=20
come along and kill a very large number. One might expect to see=20
birth defects in such an inbred population.
=20
But -- so far, so good. The estimate is that the population is=20
growing at about 4 or 5% per year -- very healthy growth for an=20
animal population. As time goes on and diversity increases with=20
population growth, there is less probability of some genetic=20
difficulty.
=20
The females begin to breed and have pups (once a year) at about age=20
5. Their life span is about 17 or 18 years. From 1880 to today is=20
127 years -- that's perhaps 15 or 20 generations.
=20
I work with these animals at the A=F1o Nuevo State Reserve on the=20
northern California coast near Santa Cruz, where about 2,500 pups=20
are born each year, during the winter breeding season.
=20
earle
*

Earle Jones <earle.jones@comcast.net> wrote:

....
In Mirounga angustirostris (northern elephant seal), the very large=20
population was reduced greatly by hunters who were after their=20
blubber. In fact from about 1850 to 1880 they were thought to be=20
extinct. Around 1880 they discovered a small group of seals (40 or=20
50) on Guadalupe Island, about 150 miles off the coast of Baja=20
California.
=20
The Mexican government passed a new law to protect them -- later the=20
US government did the same.
=20
Today there are about 160,000 elephant seals in colonies on the west=20
coast from Baja to northern California. Their population is very=20
healthy -- they are not endangered.
=20
Of course, strange things could still happen. A new virus could=20
come along and kill a very large number. One might expect to see=20
birth defects in such an inbred population.
=20
But -- so far, so good. The estimate is that the population is=20
growing at about 4 or 5% per year -- very healthy growth for an=20
animal population. As time goes on and diversity increases with=20
population growth, there is less probability of some genetic=20
difficulty.
=20
The females begin to breed and have pups (once a year) at about age=20
5. Their life span is about 17 or 18 years. From 1880 to today is=20
127 years -- that's perhaps 15 or 20 generations.
=20
I work with these animals at the A=F1o Nuevo State Reserve on the=20
northern California coast near Santa Cruz, where about 2,500 pups=20
are born each year, during the winter breeding season.
=20
earle
*

What do we know about genetic diversity in that population? Was the
bottleneck unduly polytypic? Surely drift in the early years eliminated
a lot of alleles?