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

The problem with your theory is that during the process of evolution, no one animal becomes completely dominant. Evolution occurs over millions of years. For example, over millions of years the zebra and the lion have co-evolved so to speak. As the lion kills those zebras that are not as fast, only the faster zebras survive to breed and over thousands of years the prey gets faster. Only the faster predators can keep up and therefore, only the fastest and fittest of the predators will live to breed.

Unfortunately, with the rate of increase in the human population, species really dont have the time to evolve adaptations. Besides that, what kind of adaptations would you expect to see? We leave a trail of destruction as far as the eye can see, polluting water, destroying habitat etc.

As far as your overfishing theory goes, the difference between humans overfishing and lions "overcaribouing" is that nature naturally finds a balance. As the prey species becomes lower in number, they become more ellusive and the predator numbers will also drop due to an increase in mortality and a reduction in breeding. Humans on the other hand, just keep on going. Our population numbers are not stabilising like they should.

You ask why we have to save some animals and i think that you may have a valid point. Undoubtedly, whether we were here or not, some species would go extinct. But to make a conclusive judgement, you would have to look at every animal and actually pinpoint whether the reduction in species number coincided with modern day human impacts such as land clearing, overfishing etc. This has been the case with a great many of the animal species in so much trouble today and i for one think that the world would be awfully drab and dark without them.

There is so much more i could say on this topic - i have given a hugely simplified and somewhat lacking explanation. I suggest if you are interested to go and read some books on conservation.

Answer 2

"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?"

It's not part of evolution since extinct species can't continue to evolve. It does leave room for new species but is threatening both eco systems and other species as well. A complex eco system takes long time to build up, that's why some of the oldest eco systems on earth are the most diverse.

"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."

First you say they are disappearing due to human activities then it's somehow nature's fault?

Since most predatory species live in equilibrium with their prey they wouldn't cause such massive reduction, that threatens their own food source, because as food was going scarce so would they (the predators). This is evolution and it keep both predators and prey in balance. Any species that evolved the ability to deplete its own food source would be developing an unwanted evolutionary trait. We humans get away with it, for a while longer, since we can switch between food sources and deplete them all. This endangers all the concerned eco systems and their species.

Of course, in the grander picture, new species will evolve to take up the available niches.

Answer 3

Yes, species do naturally go extinct. However, present rates are magnitudes above the background rate. If the rate of extinctions continues on course, due to the pressures of climate change, pollution, habitat destruction, competition from invasive species, etc., it is estimated that 50% of all species worldwide will be extinct within 500 years. Taken in whole, that's a mass extinction equivalent to the one that happened when the dinosaurs died out.

I'll leave it to you to decide if that's a good thing or not. Personally, I believe that biodiversity has great value. And you never know if homo sapiens will be in the 50% that don't make it.

Answer 4

i'm not sure what you're asking. there is not any such technique as devolution. you're assuming that evolution skill that animals get extra suited, extra acceptable, extra waiting to regulate their envionment. i will see the type you may assume that. Evolution only skill that over the years, the genetics of an organism substitute and a few of those transformations help the countless animals stay in places extra effectively. there is not any rule that asserts the the later species are extra suited than the older ones. as quickly as we communicate approximately ourself then of direction we'd decide to have self assurance that we are extra suited than older ones. What we'd like is irrelevant except you're speaking approximately how the breeds of people have been developed. What we call races are only breeds, in accordance with sexual decision. canines began from very few kinds, frequently like wolves, and look at each and all of the breeds of canines that human have developed. we've basically been doing that for approximately 10,000 years or so, i do no longer submit to in ideas precisely which millennium observed the 1st domestication of wolves. yet my element is which you won't have the capacity to declare that a particular breed of dogs is extra suited than a wolf. this is barely extra suited to living in a human ruled atmosphere. interior the wild, some breeds of dogs does no longer final out the night. Did you notice "Blade Runner" or "The 5th ingredient?" those videos confirmed a international completely over run by using humanity. Do you think of those situations are extra suited than what we've? ;-D i think of this is a stable thought to shop as many animals as we are able to.

Answer 5

You've got so many questions! All living animals, fish, birds,plants and all living things are necessary and good to be saved, especially when a certain specie is diminishing. Evolution does not go against conservation, but works with it!

Answer 6

There is no balance of nature anymore. All species are all dying out, dwindling in numbers, or in a few cases being sustained at great expense. The only exception is humans. On a planet devoid of life, we won't be able to survive either.

Answer 7

Another great question.

People are the problem...I'm not a big fan of my species.

We are playing God (a bi-polar one) by trying to control other species and save them while at the same time destroying their homes and food.

Answer 8

I suggest you enroll in an ecology class. To properly answer your questions would take hours.

Basically, you are either misinformed or underinformed. A little bit of information is a dangerous thing. Overharvesting the creatures of the oceans and lakes isn't a natural process, and it's self-destructive, to boot.