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

One, there is no such thing as "the balance of nature", this is an outmoded idea. Two, if the reasons for the decline of a
species are to be found in the action of humans, overfishing
for example, then the decline is reversible by a change in our
behavior. Extinction is not part of evolution, it is a completely
separate process. It has an effect on evolution, certainly, as
do many other things, but there is no necessary connection
between the two. Rather than balance in nature there is
constant change and flux. If human behavior continues to
damage other species and the environment one of the
natural results may be the extinction of human life, which
might well be a blessing to other life.

Answer 2

I am not sure what you are asking. There is no such process as devolution. You are assuming that evolution means that animals get better, stronger, more able to cope with their envionment. I can see how you would assume that.

Evolution just means that over time, the genetics of an organism change and some of these changes help some of the animals live in places more successfully. There is no rule that says the the later species are better than the older ones. When we talk about ourself then of course we WANT to believe that we are better than older ones.

What we want is irrelevant unless you are talking about how the breeds of humans have been developed. What we call races are simply breeds, based on sexual preference.

dogs started from very few kinds, mostly like wolves, and look at all the breeds of dogs that human have developed. We have only been doing that for about 10,000 years or so, I don't remember exactly which millennium saw the first domestication of wolves.

But my point is that you can not say that a particular breed of dog is better than a wolf. It is just more suited to living in a human dominated environment. In the wild, some breeds of dog would not last out the night.

Did you see "Blade Runner" or "The Fifth Element?"
Those films showed a world totally over run by humanity. Do you think those scenarios are better than what we have now?

;-D I think it is a good idea to save as many animals as we can.

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

One could argue then, why prevent illness? It is part of natural selection. The obvious response would be "to preserve life and the quality of it". The key to that response is the value we place on quality of life. Sure, we could pollute the atmosphere, kill all the fish, and live on the protein goop from the Matrix to survive, but wouldn't you rather have a nice juicy tuna steak?
We humans are unique among species in that we are aware of our impact on the world. It is this awareness that makes us responsible maintain balance on the planet. If a car is careening out of control, do you refuse to take the wheel because it is the natural tendency for the car to crash?

Answer 5

I always wonder why evolutionists would be against pollution. Don't they believe that species evolve when presented with a "stressor." Pollution should be considered a stressor that leads to a species becoming more evolved. I guess that puts the lie to their theory because in fact we tend to see devolution instead.

Answer 6

lol
one step away from social Darwinism my friend