Evolution and Natural Selection | Page 1 | Questions | Guild Forums

Images of broken light

Offline

Posted: Wed Jun 10, 2009 6:13 pm

Is it just me, or is hunting a threat to the natural selection and evolution of hunted species? A threat that is often overlooked?

Posted: Wed Jun 10, 2009 11:16 pm

Why would it be a threat to natural selection? Anything that gets hunted to extinction simply wasn't fit to survive in the presence of humans. From the perspective of the hunted, the only difference between human hunters and animal predators is that humans are better at it. Animals have no concept of keeping breeding stock alive; if they could they'd hunt their prey to extinction, and only a scarcity of predators stops that from happening. Dead is dead, no matter what your carcass is used for.
The things we hunt die, just as the things wolves hunt die, and the things lions hunt die, and the things sharks hunt die; they just die in larger numbers in our case. And if they die out all together, that's not in any way unnatural. It's just means that the things that take their place are better at not getting killed off by humans, and if that's not natural selection, nothing is.

Layra-chan

Offline

Images of broken light

Offline

Posted: Thu Jun 11, 2009 11:32 pm

Layra-chan

Why would it be a threat to natural selection? Anything that gets hunted to extinction simply wasn't fit to survive in the presence of humans. From the perspective of the hunted, the only difference between human hunters and animal predators is that humans are better at it. Animals have no concept of keeping breeding stock alive; if they could they'd hunt their prey to extinction, and only a scarcity of predators stops that from happening. Dead is dead, no matter what your carcass is used for.
The things we hunt die, just as the things wolves hunt die, and the things lions hunt die, and the things sharks hunt die; they just die in larger numbers in our case. And if they die out all together, that's not in any way unnatural. It's just means that the things that take their place are better at not getting killed off by humans, and if that's not natural selection, nothing is.

But there is a difference in the way that humans hunt and the way that a wolf or lion hunts. Natural Selection weeds out the weaker of the species right? So the weaker deer or the slower antelope would be the one killed by the predator. With humans, we don't go for the smaller, weaker animal, we go after the ones that are bigger, with the biggest horns or antlers. So, the one that is killed would be the one more fit to fend off attackers and win mates. The only organisms left to do the breeding would be the losers of the species and that would therefore weaken the species. If stronger genes are destroyed, then weaker genes are passed on. It's actually is being studied in a few species (like elephants and bighorn sheep) who have noticeably been affected by human hunting habits.

Posted: Sat Jun 13, 2009 6:01 pm

I think you have a good point. But we'd have to hunt these animals either in large numbers or in one particular place until the best of the species dies out in an area.

But I believe that hunting does not completely impede natural selection. My first intuition would be that it would help it, though I also believe humans have a tendency to disrupt the processes of nature.

One thing is for sure, and I think this is where Layra is right: something else would take its place, as always in nature.

Jerba
Captain

Offline

impossible_infinity

Offline

Posted: Sun Jun 14, 2009 10:48 am

We cant disrupt the process of nature. We are nature. everything we do from rainforest distruction, to giant, polluting cities, and even the way we wipe out species, is all natural human behavior.

On the hunting topic. when we hunt and kill things, the animals dies like as if i lion killed it. But the difference in human nature is that we kill for personal gain instead of survival. We dont hunt to survive, we hunt to make extra money and raise our status. A wolf isnt going to kill a rabbit only to barter it off for a higher place in the pack, it's going to eat it. Humans have just taken things to far.

Posted: Mon Jun 15, 2009 4:12 pm

True. But the point that I'd like to make is that things like lions and wolves help natural selection by taking out the weak in a prey's population, and humans hurt it by taking out the strong.

Let's not forget, natural selection is suppose to better a species, not make it evolve to lose a helpful tools like tusks in an elephant's case. (Source is the link at the end of the post)

A human killing something is not the same as a wolf killing something. It's not a problem that something dies. If you're just talking about something dying, then yes, a human killing something and a lion killing something would be the same thing. But that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the genes the prey carries, not its life. Something like a lion would go for the slower, sicker, less intelligent, or injured animal because it is easier to catch. Then weaker genes are destroyed. Humans don't have to rely on an animal's handicaps to kill it, and therefore like to go after the big ones to show off as a trophy. The stronger genes are destroyed that way.

So, when you compare hunting habits of a wolf and a human:

(Human)
Bigger, stronger animal killed= good genes taken out of the prey's population.

(Wolf)
Less intelligent, weaker animal killed= bad genes taken out of the prey's population.

So:

Good genes gone= weaker genes are passed on to offspring

Bad genes gone= stronger genes are passed on to offspring

Does anyone understand the situation I'm trying to explain? If not, this article can probably explain it better that I can, and shows that is it happening on a large enough scale to affect species: http://www.newsweek.com/id/177709

Images of broken light

Offline

Layra-chan

Offline

Posted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 4:55 pm

You're still misunderstanding what natural selection is supposed to do. It doesn't necessarily make species stronger or bigger or faster or whatever. It makes them more able to survive given their environment, and when their environment includes humans, "more able to survive" means "not as likely to get shot at by humans".
We hunt the ones that stick out too much. Maybe if deer didn't have such ostentatious antlers, we'd stop shooting them; thus we promote deer having smaller antlers, and thus deer with smaller antlers get to have more children. Does this mean the children are weaker? In a one-on-one contest with deer with bigger antlers, maybe, but life isn't a sequence of one-on-one contests; you need to take your environment into account at every step, so bigger antlers doesn't necessarily mean better deer.

Welcome to Gaia! ::

Gaia Guilds

Universe - an Open House for the Open-Minded

Quick Reply

More Information