CJC
09-15-2013, 05:13 PM
So I was walking through the Chemistry and Biology building of my college the other day, and next to the taxidermy-preserved animals was a pamphlet about various invasive species (both aquatic and botanical) in the area that we (humanity) must combat to prevent the extinction of native specimens.
But doesn't that combat the very principle of natural selection? Clearly these invasive species are hardier specimens, hence why they are choking out native wildlife. I can understand the argument that human beings are introducing these species to regions where they are not culled properly by predators, but shouldn't the new host ecosystem adapt for their presence? Isn't that the point of evolutionary change; animals and plants adjust to competition and become more complex in the process, or they die off?
Now don't get me wrong, I love my polar bears and frogs as much as the next person does (or perhaps just a touch more), but the competitive viability of a species is a core element of Darwinian evolution. Isn't the assumption by environmentalists that they cannot have any impact on the world inherently flawed? After all, humans too are a part of the ecosystem.
It is my theory that evolution's primary goal is to create a food chain that is viable in any of the planet's environments. So if invasive species obliterate native wildlife, then that native wildlife is not viable enough. If the invasive species also make the region inhospitable and thus starve themselves, then they TOO are not viable enough. Maintaining these separations of ecosystems seems... wrong. Like humankind is pushing against the forces of nature and chaos. Is it our hubris to believe we are more powerful than circumstance?
Anyway, that's my argument. Is there an important component of the effects of invasive species that I'm overlooking? Also, are there any counterarguments?
But doesn't that combat the very principle of natural selection? Clearly these invasive species are hardier specimens, hence why they are choking out native wildlife. I can understand the argument that human beings are introducing these species to regions where they are not culled properly by predators, but shouldn't the new host ecosystem adapt for their presence? Isn't that the point of evolutionary change; animals and plants adjust to competition and become more complex in the process, or they die off?
Now don't get me wrong, I love my polar bears and frogs as much as the next person does (or perhaps just a touch more), but the competitive viability of a species is a core element of Darwinian evolution. Isn't the assumption by environmentalists that they cannot have any impact on the world inherently flawed? After all, humans too are a part of the ecosystem.
It is my theory that evolution's primary goal is to create a food chain that is viable in any of the planet's environments. So if invasive species obliterate native wildlife, then that native wildlife is not viable enough. If the invasive species also make the region inhospitable and thus starve themselves, then they TOO are not viable enough. Maintaining these separations of ecosystems seems... wrong. Like humankind is pushing against the forces of nature and chaos. Is it our hubris to believe we are more powerful than circumstance?
Anyway, that's my argument. Is there an important component of the effects of invasive species that I'm overlooking? Also, are there any counterarguments?