Thi Chi, read my last post to you. If two virtually identical sub-species BOTH suffer decline, one cannot assume the mechanism postulated as the cause of one decline is right (as you do), as the other population also declines in absence of that postulated mechanism.
Of course, it could be a coincidence that BOTH sub-species decline AT THE SAME TIME for DIFFERENT reasons.
Just like it could be a coincidence that we have liberated 47% of carbon from human deforestation in only 154 years WHILST (in the last 50 years especially) ALSO liberating millions of years of stored carbon bound up in fossil fuels AT THE SAME TIME as worrying climatic trends.
Just like it could be a coincidence that some of the misleading statements (some even known to be untrue) were made by Bush reigemites (regarding Iraq) AT CONVENIENTLY TIMED MOMENTS in the build up to the invasion.
Of course, the latter is off topic, but it serves to illustrate how, time and again, you choose to believe in unlikely coincidences to support your world-view.
Now, of course, it could be a coincidence that you sincerely believe in coincidences, but I think it says more about your credulity than about synchronicity.
I also note you don't fault my comments on your behaviour. But you don't clarify whether you are stupid, deceitful or a monomaniac.
In light of your sincere, charming, and regular belief in coincidences I think I tend towards monomania, although you do also deliberately use strawman arguments (especially passive ones like the ones I have pointed out, where you don't directly attribute statements to someone but start saying things no one has claimed are true aren't true in the hope mud will stick).
So even if you are a credulous and deceived monomaniac, you are also dishonest.
Of course, eveybody IS dishonest at somepoint, but I wonder how such blatent and regular dishonesty sat with your religous pretentions? As Jesus said judge a tree by it's fruits, I am curious.