That doesn't make sense. Two non-harmonious species can co-exist and both still eat.
Yes and that way they naturally balance each other.
That doesn't make sense. Two non-harmonious species can co-exist and both still eat.
Due to non A&F nature of science. We can't see so many variations in science.
The eventual collapse of one or both of them. Take the problem of invasive species. They conflict with native species until either they achieve an equilibrium (a balance) or one drives out/destroys the other.
You need to read some Kumar threads. Good luck.
It means Absolute and Final.
Or that's what the words mean. In reality it's meaningless.
You are starting to sound like Kumar - pure Gibberish.
Some balance, some fluctuate, some go extinct. It's all part of nature in reality. There is no actual purpose and no actual balance.How various Biological species can exist unless there is some harmony or balance among them?
It it not in my signature?
Balance in nature lesson 1: the storkYes and that way they naturally balance each other.
I tried "rotted shark". Pretty bad, but not the worst thing I have ever tasted. And the Puffin was quite edible.
Today I saw a feature about a cheetah mother struggling to feed a litter of six (!) cubs. While they were eating she chased away the gathering vultures.
I started to wonder why she didn't kill a few of them. Pretty free food as they walked (well, lurched) right up close.
You are starting to sound like Kumar - pure Gibberish.
Basic ecological science. And conforms to real world ecological observations.
The only terms which are on-topic for this thread are scavenger and edible.I'll admit I'm having trouble finding the term on Google as he seems to be using it. Is there a website?
Basic[Oversimplified] ecological science. And conforms to [some] real world ecological observations.