I hit the wrong key on that link  -  www.nytimes.com/2011/03/08/science/08/science/08obfrog.html                                  It still does not work     Well if you want to check it out, go to the New York Times science section  and check out the article  -  " Invasive Amphibian Spcies Upend a Darwin Idea".

Not really. It makes complete sense to me. Frogs survive well in areas that other frogs survive well in, not much of a shock considering they eat the same types of food, live in similar environments etc. The only time that you would have a problem is if there was a scarcity of shared food, in which case one species or the other might experience starvation. Since most amphibians eat food sources that are extremely plentiful such as insects and worms, it is no surprise that food shortages are rarely, if ever, a problem. So while they may eat the same food, they are not really competing anymore than you are competing with people at an all you can eat buffet. There is plenty of food to go around, and much of it will go to waste. 

Now if you were talking about a large mammal in an area where food is limited, an invasive species could have a detrimental effect because they would be competing for the same food. For example, in a northern climate food can often be scarce, especially in a harsh winter and some animals do starve to death. If you were to introduce a new animal that ate similar food, whichever species was quicker to eat the food would have a better survival rate because they would in fact be competing for the same food.

1.) He said "Probably" we'd need a evidence from a number of different cases to affirm or deny this...one is simply not enough in terms of probabilities.

2.) I don't think that's the first thing he's been wrong about either. Even so, it doesn't change that he was right about somethings. That's the nature of good science.

        Great !  maybe now I can understand what people see in her.