What is the top predator in the ocean besides man?

[FunkyDexter]

The reason is that Hollywood is portraying sharks as evil and Orcas as shark killing heroes

This illustrates the problem right here. You're conflating a bunch of disparate factors that have no real connection to each other and extrapolating from them to form your idea of a top predator. What does being evil have to do with anything? Putting aside the fact that heroism and evil are human constructs that really should have no place in this discussion, ALL predators conform to our concept of evil. They are all murderous bastards if you happen to be lower than them in food chain.

And you still haven't given any indication of what you mean by top predator. I know you don't want to but without doing this discussion is absolutely meaningless. I could argue that my pocket calculator is the top predator because it can spell out boobies. That argument is every bit as valid as your assertion that the mako wins due to its speed because you haven't provided a defnition that excludes boobies as a key criteria.

You've repeatedly asserted that man is the top predator on the planet but, by the criteria you've applied to your own "experiment" we would be losing outright. We're not fast. We don't have big teeth. Our senses are pretty rubbish compared to other predators. In fact, what has allowed us to become the most important keystone species on our planet (which is what I think you're confusing with "top predator" when you're aplying it to humans) was our ability to hunt in packs, adapt our enviroment to suit our needs rather than adapting ourselves to suit the enviroment, and apply intelligence when resolving problems. The scientific papers that Shaggy has provided you with demonstrate these same traits in orcas but there you discount them. Mainly, I think, because your interpretation of "top predator" when applied to fish is actually "most able solitary hunter". Your applying an utterly different definition in both cases because it suits your argument to do so.

You've dismissed scientific papers in favour of TV entertainment.

You've argued that orcas are not higher up the food chain than sharks on the basis that the predate them "rarely" but placed makos higher even though there is not a single documented case of them predating an orca but that you think it's likely.

I personally reckon Shaggy's good at two things. One's facial hair and the other's fish. You are arguing with a fish biologist. An actual scientist. You are in his area of scientific expertise and you're trying to tell him that he doesn't understand the science. Next you'll be telling him that a bushy beard doesn't become him... mind you, you'll be right on that one.

You care more about the size of a predators schlong than you do about it's dress sense. (OK, this one's not really an argument but I demand my right to be stupidly off topic). Actually, that's really bad because I bet you haven't even considered the disco stylings of an octopus or cuttlefish. Those bad boys can really get down.

You have clearly miss-understood the concept of simulation modelling, the pitflls therein and the techniques you should be applying to avoid the.

You can't understand the difference between a food web and a food chain.

You think that someone pointing out that the CONCEPT of a food chain is occasionally applied ERRONEOUSLY to small groups of animals to mean that a top predator both does and doesn't exist. (It meant that it doesn't, by the way).

You think that the fact Lucas decided to call the boat in jaws the Orca has some underlying sub text that reveals a universal hatred of sharks in hollywood. While missing the possibility that it might have just sounded like a snappy name. Particularly given the fact that Jaws was made before scientists started documenting Orca predation upon sharks. Are you really saying that you watched Jaws and came away thinking "pfft, that great white was a wimp, orcas are much harder?" That was the message you took away from that film? Really?!

You think that a quotation from a scientifcic journal that says Mako are a bit nippy around the ocean is a valid scientific basis for drawing the conclusion that they're likely to prey on orcas and think that citing it provides validation for you whole argument.

You seem to have missed the fact that everyone who has commented on your aproach has said it's flawed or "gamed". Even when we've pointed out to you that they've said it. You still can't see them saying it.

I'm left with only one conclusion I could possbibly draw. Shaggy's right, you are delusional. What have you taken and where can I get some?

Constantly repeating that there is no such thing as a top predator when it is obvious that Man is the topmost organic predator on Earth makes you look a bit demented

No. Constantly disregarding this somewhoat obvious truth makes you look a bit demented. We're not the top predator unless you define top predator as keystone organism.