|
sep4475
|
|
|
|
Quote: Keel, Wednesday, 24 Mar 2010 22:15All creatures are mutually dependent to a greater or lesser degree, and, whether environmental or engineered, the demise of one has an effect on others: crown of thorns starfish eat coral, certain aquatic animals suffer because coral vanishes; coastal erosion speeds up and houses fall into the sea, and so on. The list is endless. Man feeding animals is part of the whole scenario: we feed animals and they become dependant on this, we stop feeding them and they either adapt or perish. Gene pool takes second place to adaptability. It doesn’t matter how tough a creature is, if it cannot adapt it will go the way of the dodo (bad analogy, but there you go). Inexplicably, rabbits worked out that myxomatosis spread in burrows and started living in hedgerows and woods. This, and with an immune system working overtime, mortality rate dropped from 90 plus % to under 50%. A weak defenceless creature adapted and now maintains a sizable population in the UK. Adaptability within a timeframe is the key; that’s why we inhabit this planet from frozen wastes to tropical jungle. Indeed adaptability in the face of adversity is the key, but the rabbits survived against humans attempt to destroy them. Adversity brought out the best in them. The real killer is a 'free meal' where a species no longer faces adversity. The Dodo funnily enough is a prime example; it lived on an island with no natural predators and therefore no requirement to retain any of its natural defenses; flight, the ability to run fast, a natural fear of a predator. When a predator did eventually find its way to the island (ie humans) they were wiped out in a very short time.
.
|
|
Nestat
|
|
|
|
Quote: sep4475, Wednesday, 24 Mar 2010 21:44Sometimes less is more. There may be more Robins about, but they will have a less successful genetic heritage. Think of it in terms of humans. If we removed everything that made our lives easy and we had to go out and hunt for our food, build our own homes etc how many of us would survive? 50%? 20%? 10%? I know I probably wouldn't survive. Simply by suspending natural selection within our own species we have effectively allowed a huge number of individuals to survive who certainly would not have if left to nature. Obviously its not the same for Robin's as they have not left natural selection behind as we have. But you can see that advantage has its price in the long term. How is that a disadvantage in the long term? Many of the people who "wouldn't survive" are productive members of society who are actively working to ensure our continued dominance over natural selection (scientists, engineers, teachers, etc.). It is because we are breeding so much that we produce both individuals ideally adapted to our current environment and "stronger" individuals who would be better suited to a more primitive environment. And, crucially, a whole host of individuals between those two extremes which ensure our species has the mental and physical versatility to survive drastic changes to our environment. The more we can breed, the more likely some will survive a drastic climate change. That is the same for robins and is evolution in its simplest form. This is what it boils down to: the robins who would die in winter are not necessarily "less superior", they are simply not as suited to cold climates. However, they might well be better suited to hot climates. If the climate gets warmer, these robins will flourish where the cold-adjusted robins will struggle. If we feed them through winters and the climate suddenly gets warmer, the hot-adjusted robins will survive and the cold-adjusted will die. If the climate gets colder, then the hot-adjusted will die and the cold-adjusted will survive. If we do not feed them and the climate gets colder, the cold-adjusted robins will survive. But if the climate gets hotter, the cold-adjusted will die and the hot-adjusted will already be dead.
Writing for yourself is writing for others: "My book could very well end up being reconstituted as a trestle table in a home for battered women." - Alan Partridge
|
|
Nestat
|
|
|
|
Quote: sep4475, Wednesday, 24 Mar 2010 22:28Indeed adaptability in the face of adversity is the key, but the rabbits survived against humans attempt to destroy them. Adversity brought out the best in them. The real killer is a 'free meal' where a species no longer faces adversity. The Dodo funnily enough is a prime example; it lived on an island with no natural predators and therefore no requirement to retain any of its natural defenses; flight, the ability to run fast, a natural fear of a predator. When a predator did eventually find its way to the island (ie humans) they were wiped out in a very short time. Two points on the dodo: (1) The dodo did not spontaneously give up flight. It evolved away from its natural defences because they were counterproductive to the environment in which it found itself. If they did not have the genetic disposition not to survive in a harsh environment, they would have died out when they got the island. (2) Humans are not natural predators and we cannot fairly judge evolutionary success on our predation. No other species on earth would methodically and meticulously exterminate another species without food as the motivational factor. (No, not even cats.) And on the issue of free meals: yes, rabbits survived in the face of adversity. But then they were introduced to Australia - an entire continent of free meals - and would probably have killled themselves due to aggressive over-population. The disposition to survive in a harsh environment might have helped when food was scarce, but ultimately would have killed them.
This post was last edited by Nestat, 24 Mar 2010, 23:25
Writing for yourself is writing for others: "My book could very well end up being reconstituted as a trestle table in a home for battered women." - Alan Partridge
|
|
notleyab
|
|
|
|
Quote: Nestat, Wednesday, 24 Mar 2010 23:11Quote: sep4475, Wednesday, 24 Mar 2010 22:28Indeed adaptability in the face of adversity is the key, but the rabbits survived against humans attempt to destroy them. Adversity brought out the best in them. The real killer is a 'free meal' where a species no longer faces adversity. The Dodo funnily enough is a prime example; it lived on an island with no natural predators and therefore no requirement to retain any of its natural defenses; flight, the ability to run fast, a natural fear of a predator. When a predator did eventually find its way to the island (ie humans) they were wiped out in a very short time. Two points on the dodo: (1) The dodo did not spontaneously give up flight. It evolved away from its natural defences because they were counterproductive to the environment in which it found itself. If they did not have the genetic disposition not to survive in a harsh environment, they would have died out when they got the island. (2) Humans are not natural predators and we cannot fairly judge evolutionary success on our predation. No other species on earth would methodically and meticulously exterminate another species without food as the motivational factor. (No, not even cats.) And on the issue of free meals: yes, rabbits survived in the face of adversity. But then they were introduced to Australia - an entire continent of free meals - and would probably have killled themselves due to aggressive over-population. The disposition to survive in a harsh environment might have helped when food was scarce, but ultimately would have killed them. Just checking. looks lkike this thread's as dead as a dodo.
|
|
Nestat
|
|
|
|
Because it's almost managed to stay on its original topic?
Writing for yourself is writing for others: "My book could very well end up being reconstituted as a trestle table in a home for battered women." - Alan Partridge
|
|
notleyab
|
|
|
|
Quote: Nestat, Thursday, 25 Mar 2010 13:49Because it's almost managed to stay on its original topic? Yeah, all you need do is add dodos to the frogs and toads as critters to avoid squelching. And if you shd hit one, the RSPB wd be interested to hear. Probably McDonalds too, - you cd get a helluva load more nuggets out of a dodo than a chicken.
|
On behalf of amphibians
24 Mar 2010, 22:28
