Quote Originally Posted by Witis View Post
I bet you don't even know what delusional means; moreover, resorting to insults is an indication that you are losing it like John McEnroe throwing a bratty tanty.
Read the responses people have given. To date, everybody who has responded has stated that you are deluding yourself in some way or another.


If you are arguing that great white sharks are further up the food chain than humans I think that most scientists would view you as either extremely eccentric or psychotic.
Actually, they would not. Being a biologist, I work in the field with dozens of other biologists every working day, and my point of view on this is not unusual or remarkable. It is routine to point out that we are not at the top of the food chain, despite a willingness to eat nearly anything else.


There is nothing in this thread that focuses on anything other than science which means you are seeing things that are not there, alternatively stated you are showing signs of suffering from illusionary symptoms. If you are in any further doubt please read my signature which stipulates that objective science (non fiction) > faith based religions (fiction).
If you aren't a creationist, that's fine. You never explicitly stated that you were or were not, but those statements made it appear possible, so I thought I should ask. If you were coming from that point of view, it would cast your statements in a different light. As it appears that you are not, then we might as well leave it.


Please elaborate on exactly how an Orca can kill a Mako one on one.
You saw a video on it in an earlier post, so the means is: Stun it with its tail, then flip it onto its back. Since they do this, it is clearly possible. You may be saying that it takes a pod to do this, or you may say that the mako is either weak or young. Either may well be the case. In fact, the latter is likely, as that is typical predation behavior for larger predators, but so what? Do you have evidence of a mako ever eating a healthy orca?


The reason for focusing on teeth is that they are often critical in determining the true nature of a creature. For example although the T.Rex used to be regarded as the top of the food chain on land, a prehistoric king, it has since been revealed that their teeth may actually provide crucial evidence for repositioning them as more scavenger than predator, the debate is ongoing see here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12gWL6y3Uw4 and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valley_of_the_T-Rex. Likewise the teeth of the Orca mean that it cannot eat sharks regularly or it wears its teeth down to the gums meaning it is not a natural shark predator.
I'm well aware of that. I'm also well aware that it has limits. You probably note that some human populations are almost exclusively carnivorous, while there are plenty that are vegetarians, yet our teeth are as diverse as our diet. Additionally, you may well be aware that such nominal herbivores as deer have been known to eat meat. To say that Orcas don't exclusively eat sharks is kind of trivial, since everybody agrees with that. They are opportunistic foragers, as are most predators. You have agreed that they DO eat makos, and have yet to show that makos eat orcas.


No natural, the sea is predominantly filled with predatory species, unlike on land, therefore determining the topmost aquatic predator is a function of their natural environment.
That isn't even possible.


What species name isn't a characteristic of the animal, and what rules are being violated?
The classic definition of a species is that it can't produce viable offspring with any other species. That is violated routinely in fish.

I disagree, the construct of species has been successfully implemented and is constantly revised.
Good luck with that.

By saying that there is no such thing as a top predator, when it is obvious that Man is the top organic predator on Earth, makes you appear overtly delusional.
Wow, that must have really stung you. How about if we let you tell us: Why do you believe that there is a single top predator?


In other words you don't have a keystone predator for me to look at that could beat the Mako either directly or indirectly.
I certainly have no idea what keystone predators might exist, though sharks, in general, are often thought to fill that role. A keystone predator doesn't have to be a top predator by any measure, it just has to be critical to the ecosystem as it currently stands.


I am only looking at the scientific facts specifically to avoid any self deception or subjective conclusions.
You are failing at that. Has anybody who has responded here more than once said anything other than that you are being entirely subjective?

The primary widely held view or theory is that the Orca is the topmost oceanic predator, I have presented facts that contradict this theory.
Ok, so you have an alternative theory. Now you can test the theory, and there is no better time to be living to perform that test. It won't be all that easy, most likely. Since you are unlikely to be able to measure directly (in any human lifetime) the number of makos eaten by orcas vs. the number of orcas eaten by makos, but you may be able to find some papers on the subject in Google Docs (or possibly a good research library, if you have access to one). I would guess that orcas eat more makos than makos eat orcas, but I would be surprised if it was entirely one sided.

What has that got to do with the top land based predator?
It's called sarcasm.