Contradiction between ESA and Evolution, thoughts?

[Nemont]

Nice deflection from the goose issue Greenhorn.

Geese we goods gift to those of us who don't want to pack out a moose on our backs but still want to spend alot of money helping the Pittman-Robertson fund

 

[VAspeedgoat]

Shame on Noah for letting the wolves on the boat. And check out that buck in the photo - what a dinker. Just think if he'd only let a giant non-typical board the ark. Things would be so much better today.

But to stay on topic - I suggest watching Mr. Garrison's theory of evolution. If we came from monkey fish frogs, how did the wolves evolve?

Definitely a must see for this thread.:hump:

 

[Hunting Wife]

A little biology nerd perspective, FWIW.

When you are talking about the biological process of evolution, the definition is a little more complex than the Webster 's version. A science text book would explain it as the change in genetic composition of a population over successive generations, which may be caused by natural selection, inbreeding, hybridization, or mutation. That type of population level genetic change takes many, many generations to result in species level changes. For most species, that means millenia.

Yes, humans are part of nature, but we also impact the landscape at an unprecedented rate. So think of something like the passenger pigeon. The species went from hundreds of millions of individuals to extinction in a span of around 50 years. We are good at what we do. And no species can survive long enough to evolve under that type of pressure.

The point of the ESA isn't necessarily to keep things from going extinct, but to preserve enough genetic diversity in a given species long enough for that species to have a chance to adapt and evolve. Is it a losing battle? In some cases, yes. There are species on the list that are beyond recovery, though the concept of species triage is a controversial subject right now in biology. But if nothing is able to survive us long enough to evolve, we'll find ourselves up the proverbial creek eventually.

 

[shoots-straight]

The people drinking lead in Flint Michigan are no better than the wolf. Let the chips fall where they may. RIGHT?

 

[James Riley]

The people drinking lead in Flint Michigan are no better than the wolf. Let the chips fall where they may. RIGHT?

The people who let the people in Flint Michigan drink lead are not only no better than the wolf, they are worse.

When the wolf roamed wild in Flint Michigan, the people of Flint Michigan drank with impunity from the Flint River.

I think the wolf is pretty innocent and totally unrelated to the people in Flint Michigan.

 

[sparker4]

Thank you!

A little biology nerd perspective, FWIW.

When you are talking about the biological process of evolution, the definition is a little more complex than the Webster 's version. A science text book would explain it as the change in genetic composition of a population over successive generations, which may be caused by natural selection, inbreeding, hybridization, or mutation. That type of population level genetic change takes many, many generations to result in species level changes. For most species, that means millenia.

Yes, humans are part of nature, but we also impact the landscape at an unprecedented rate. So think of something like the passenger pigeon. The species went from hundreds of millions of individuals to extinction in a span of around 50 years. We are good at what we do. And no species can survive long enough to evolve under that type of pressure.

The point of the ESA isn't necessarily to keep things from going extinct, but to preserve enough genetic diversity in a given species long enough for that species to have a chance to adapt and evolve. Is it a losing battle? In some cases, yes. There are species on the list that are beyond recovery, though the concept of species triage is a controversial subject right now in biology. But if nothing is able to survive us long enough to evolve, we'll find ourselves up the proverbial creek eventually.

Hunting Wife, thank you very much for your clear explanation. My question wasn't a joke and it wasn't meant to be rude. I was truly looking for an explanation of what seemed to me to be a contradiction. I thank you for helping me understand the perspective of others and the purpose of the ESA, which I honestly didn't know. Thanks again!

 

[cascadehunter]

Big foot, you follow the human conceited belief that if it doesn't exist in the united states, it is endangered/extinct. Reality is there are 10's of thousands of wolf in north america. There is not a 'balance' of nature that the environmentalists envision. Look at the wolf of Yellowstone. Not only have they destroyed their abundant food supply, but to their own demise have created unhealthy wolf of today. Yellowstone is the example because they are so well followed and documented. Have you or anyone looked at the mainge infested poor health of the that beast? Without control/management they are doomed to prosper then suffer in a never ending cycle of feast/famine. If we 'conservationists' are to truly intervene and be the enhancers of nature then we should be the mitigators of self preservation of this species also. I do believe there is a place /role for the grey wolf in our ecosystem, but not to the extent of destroying that system.
2 books, read Wolfer - by Carter Neidemeir and The Real Wolf - Ted B Lyon & Will N Graves. Be informed, believe history, don't follow what is published for an agenda only. I am certainly NOT proclaiming to be the most educated man about wolf, but I know not to follow BS..