Evolution Vs. Conservation?

Question

There are a lot of animals that are becoming extinct some because of what we humans are doing, but isn’t that part of evolution? One animal becomes dominant and then those that cannot cope with the domination become extinct. Others evolve so that they can cope with the dominating species?

And why do we have to try and save some animals? Maybe nature is getting rid of them for a reason, such as the dinosaurs. What happens when we are interfering and trying to help animals, and plants for that matter, that genetically and evolutionarily are no longer needed?

People say we over fish, that’s because there is a large number of the human species. People protest and try and help fish numbers. What if, for example, lion populations expanded because the conditions were right, such as it is for Homo sapiens now, and that meant there were more of them, resulting in caribou numbers declining. Are we going to call it overcaribouing? No, probably not. Are we going to try and save caribou numbers? Why would we need to as it is just the path of nature. A group of the caribou might evolve to outrun them for example but if we interfere to try and ‘help’ them then we might actually be stuffing up that evolutionary process. Then some people would want to reduce the number of lions and start killing them. That would also not be good for the balance of nature.

Answer 1

i think the conflict is really between conserving only the 'cute' animals for sentimental reasons and really trying to preserve biodiversity. it would be too bad if the ugly bug that might have sparked the discovery of a cure for cancer goes extinct. many of the extinctions going on today are being caused by humans, doing nothing is also a decision.

Answer 2

From my point of view
man is interfering with evolution .. some times for our own good and mostly for bad ..
if evolution kept going with no interference we will markedly improve ..
for example when a person is hit by a cancer gene (encogen) causing tumor .. if that happened so long ago he would have die or it won't find a mate and this will stop the gene from passing to next generations , the same thing with people with congenital heart problems and so on ,
we ,as human, almost stopped evolving once we started to save the people with defects .. and trying to bring them to lead a normal life ..
imagine a cruel nazi world where the only care for the healthy people and terminate any person with defects maybe in a few hundreds of years we will have a people with super immunity , maybe no cancer or any other diseases , maybe the ability to store most kinds of nutrients and many other advantages we will get.. but the question it .. does it worth killing your son or a person you love just for the good of the future generations .. I don't think so ..
the question I have in my head now .. if there are many planets with probable sort of live and they are evolving with other rules or different ways or faster speeds , how are we going to face that .. imagine and alien with the ability to live in water and land , to swim and fly , to resist heat and cold and maybe with no diseases ..

Answer 3

"there are a number of animals that have become extinct some via fact of what we people are doing, yet isn’t that area of evolution? One animal turns into dominant and then those that won't be able to cope with the domination grow to be extinct. Others evolve so as that they are able to regulate the dominating species?" it is not area of evolution for the reason that extinct species won't have the capacity to proceed to adapt. It does depart room for brand spanking new species yet is threatening the two eco structures and different species as properly. a complicated eco equipment takes long term to construct up, this is why the countless oldest eco structures in the international are the main distinctive. "And why can we ought to continuously try to shop some animals? in line with probability nature is getting rid of them for a reason, such via fact the dinosaurs." First you assert they're disappearing via human activities then it incredibly is by some skill nature's fault? for the reason that maximum predatory species stay in equilibrium with their prey they does no longer reason such massive alleviation, that threatens their own nutrients source, via fact as nutrients replaced into going scarce so might they (the predators). this is evolution and it save the two predators and prey in stability. Any species that developed the skill to apply up its own nutrients source may be springing up an undesirable evolutionary trait. We people wreck out with it, for a at an analogous time as longer, for the reason that we are able to change between nutrients factors and deplete all of them. This endangers each and all of the worried eco structures and their species. of direction, interior the grander image, new species will evolve to soak up the obtainable niches.

Answer 4

Evolution Vs. Conservation?
Evolution verses Creation!
If you have the right source you will have the right answers.(Evolution is always assumption and is never provable anyway).
All animals are part of Creation and it is right to look after them.