Nitrogen Cycle - Fish - Light - Coral - Game Over?

[sixty_reefer]

Anything else @Dan_P?

At this point im genuinely starting to wonder whether the two of you have spent 5 pages trying to fact check concepts that you don’t fully understand yourselves.

Chemically

The microscope pictures in the article should probably be a hint, although bots aren’t great at making those connections.

 

[BeanAnimal]

@Dan_P, I was beginning to suspect biology wasn’t your field and this response doesn’t do much to change that impression

You’ve chosen the very first biological concept in the article and somehow concluded that describing nutrients moving through organisms, organic matter, decomposition and remineralisation is misinformation.

In a normal aquarium, most nutrients input enters the system as organic matter through food, waste, detritus and dead organisms not as if nitrate or phosphate magically appearing from no where.

The point of the paragraph is that nutrients are continuously moving through biological pathways before being returned to inorganic forms. In that context decomposition becomes one of the most important recycling processes in the aquarium.

Calling that misinformation seems like a very odd place to start.

Anything else @Dan_P?

At this point im genuinely starting to wonder whether the two of you have spent 5 pages trying to fact check concepts that you don’t fully understand yourselves.

Chemically

The microscope pictures in the article should probably be a hint, although bots aren’t great at making those connections.

You are reframing five pages of unanswered questions and your serial deflections as us not understanding biology.

You have now moved from credential demands to ad hominem attacks, repeated bot accusations, and open mockery, exactly as the pattern from prior threads predicts.

Dan correctly cited a logical error in your own sentence. "If nutrients move through organisms rather than directly through chemistry" sets up a contradiction. Biology does not operate instead of chemistry. He didn't misunderstand the biology. He caught the flaw in your logic and pointed it out. There is no amount of retreat or reframing that can fix that.

Asking for measurable definitions and metrics does not require us to understand biology. It requires you to provide the measurable definitions and metrics. You have not done that here or anywhere else.

The logical contradictions in your article have not been addressed. They are glaring enough that anyone can see them. You have not reconciled them. Can you without reframing?

Two more posts filled with reframes, ad hominem attacks, and smug mockery. Still no answers.

 

[The Wannabe Reefer]

I appreciated your article. I am not a new reefer, and I often come here looking for knowledge, whether it comes from personal experience, opinion, anecdotal evidence, or scientific fact.

It is unfortunate that this article was hijacked in a way that caused it to lose the value it was originally intended to provide. That is very disappointing, and I am sorry to see it happen. I truly hope this is not the norm here at R2R.

 

[sixty_reefer]

You’ve made your position clear. You believe the article contains contradictions and unsupported claims. I disagree.

The paragraph being discussed is about biological nutrient recycling through organisms, decomposition and remineralisation. The microscope pictures of the worm, Protozoa and the pods throughout the article should have made that context obvious.

 

[sixty_reefer]

I appreciated your article. I am not a new reefer, and I often come here looking for knowledge, whether it comes from personal experience, opinion, anecdotal evidence, or scientific fact.

It is unfortunate that this article was hijacked in a way that caused it to lose the value it was originally intended to provide. That is very disappointing, and I am sorry to see it happen. I truly hope this is not the norm here at R2R.

Thank you, I suspect that part of the problem is that bots can’t think like aquarists. That’s how common hobby concepts end up being treated as mysterious terminology rather than concepts that most experienced aquarist would immediately recognise.

 

[sixty_reefer]

Somehow the virus has escaped containment and spread into the biodiversity thread.

I’ve already spotted fragments of the original article appearing over there without a link to the source.

 

[Dan_P]

If folks haven’t read the article, I think it is time to start highlighting in detail why it should be considered misinformation.

You don’t need to read very much before encountering generalizations, mistakes, and junk terminology that will cause you to wonder about the depth of the author’s understanding of the subject matter. I will analyze the entire article for flaws and misinformation, but in no particular order. I will start with this sentence to illustrate the type of confusion that exists in the article

If nutrients move through organisms rather than directly through chemistry, then decomposition becomes one of the most important processes in the aquarium,

Issue
Nonsense: nutrients move…directly through chemistry.
Non sequitur: If nutrients move through organisms then decomposition becomes one of the most important processes in the aquarium

In today’ analysis of the article that starts this post, I point out flaws that should weigh heavily in the evaluation of the merits of the ideas presented. This wil require more than one post to examine the techno-babble contained in the quoted statement below (italics)

The terms that seem like they are conveying meaning but actually have none in the context of the article are the words resilient and stability. Besides being somewhat redundant, a resilient aquarium or stable aquarium has not been defined in terms of measurable parameters or observable phenomenon. What exactly is stable or resilient? How long must an aquarium be in a condition or state to be considered stable? Is it an all or nothing condition or can there be more or less stable? What is measured or observed to diagnose the state of stability? Using such empty signifiers to describe the outcome of the articles ideas calls into question the validity of the ideas themselves. More on this paragraph next time.

A reef aquarium becomes truly resilient when nutrients move through a diverse web of organisms rather than through a single bacterial pathway. The nitrogen cycle can be measured with a test kit, biome cycling cannot. It reveals itself through biodiversity, food-web development, resilience and stability over time.

 

[sixty_reefer]

@Dan_P, I’ve addressed this earlier in the thread

Edit: If you were genuinely working within the field and had read the article in that context, you would likely recognise that many of the questions you’re asking about quantification and measurement only became necessary once a idea moves into experimental stage. At that point, concepts such as resilience, stability, diversity and biome development can be operational defined and measured, the article itself was discussing those concepts at a conceptual level.

I don’t think this fact checking thing is going quite the way you expected it would.

 

[BeanAnimal]

You’ve made your position clear. You believe the article contains contradictions and unsupported claims. I disagree.

The paragraph being discussed is about biological nutrient recycling through organisms, decomposition and remineralisation. The microscope pictures of the worm, Protozoa and the pods throughout the article should have made that context obvious.

As I stated above, there is no reframing the contradiction that sentence. You made an error and it has been clearly cited. Reframing it does not fix it and refusing to acknowledge it does not make it disappear.

Disagreement is an empty word here. It does no work other than to serve as the ultimate deflection, It is an open admission that you cannot defend your own words or support your own claims.

 

[sixty_reefer]

Although you could answer this question here

Was this picture generated by the bot that keeps arguing with me in the thread you linked?

You know I don't use test kits Paul. Ohh wait, you don't read anything I write. Let's try images then. Give me my precious!

 

[BeanAnimal]

Although you could answer this question here

You are reframing a long running forum meme between friends. Using what is clearly an AI generated image, shared among others in the same context, as evidence that you are arguing with a bot is both mockery and conspiracy. The cycle of deflections is now complete, exactly as the pattern and your post history predicts.

You are doing nothing but deflecting. Not a word of this here, there or anywhere supports any of your claims or is on topic. You are running around with a fog machine to hide the fact that you can't support your own claims or reconcile the contradictions they expose.

I am still waiting on answers from the on topic questions asked on pages one and two:

“The contradiction here is that laying out the complexity actually undermines the point that it can be measured, defined or controlled much differently than it already is.”

“But worse, this advice to take it slow and steady appears to directly contradict your overall theme here, which is starting out with "more" and seeding the tank with as much life as possible from zero day.”

Can you reconcile these direct contradictions?

“ How do we know when resilience is sufficient or diversity is adequate?”
Can you provide an answer that is measurable and not abstract, and is directly in context to the claims made?

On the microscope claims in context to the article and remarks.
“ Exactly how?
Insurance for what?
What are you looking for, what does finding it tell you, and what would you do differently based on what you see?”

Can you answer those questions without abstraction and in context to the claims and comments?

“ What population constitutes sufficient to prevent being outpaced? How do you measure it?”
Can you answer, again with same criteria as above?

 

[AlyciaMarie Verified Admin]

This thread has moved beyond a productive discussion, and it is being closed. Thank you.