Hi Granny,
Why are you gobsmacked?
In a modern context, they are almost exclusively those species that are threatened by human activity.
Yes, I agree! But aren't we just an evolved species? Humans that is? Aren't we just a natural out come of millions years of natural processes and our ape friends are the same? Many of them made the list by the way. We would have been on it till we got the heck out of Africa! Aren't humans 100% natural?
The leading causes of extinction are loss of habitat (due to human activity
But doesn't this happen from other species as well? Don't other species destroy habitats all the time. Have you ever heard of locusts? And I remember just recently we had a problem with a certain moth/caterpillar that stripped all the oak trees in a multi-state region. Isn't this all just part of nature. Sure species get knocked out of where they live, but this is not just our species that causes such events. It's just part of nature.
competition for resources (with humanity)
Yes, and we are winning! Oh? is that bad? Sorry. Isn't there competition amongst all species for resources? That's what natural selection is. Do you not like your own theory? I agree, I don't like it either.
non-native species (introduced by humans),
But don't other species do this also? Have you ever wondered how fish get into man made lakes? Miracles or Nature? And what about all that natural plate techtonics which disperses species? And climate change and migrations? And fury animals that carry parasites and bugs and the like? Isn't this just a part of nature?
climate change (caused by humans)
Oh yes, we do have a lot of technology that produces carbon emissions. But let's not forget about the cows and wildabeasts to. Don't they fart alot? Maybe we can use science to capture that and run our cars! Don't other species contribute to the 1.5 degrees increase in 100 years. I have seen so many species just dropping over dead due to those 1.5 degrees. But isn't this just natural?
overexploitation (by humans)
Yes, sometimes we like money. And we fish too much, and hunt too much. And sometimes those poor unevolved critters just don't survive. But don't other species do this? Don't sometimes they kill more than they can eat? And doesn't our overexploited waste produce a great ecosystem for many species to thrive? Isn't this just nature at work?
pollution (humans again)
Yes, we do inadvertantly kill some critters with pollution. Isn't BP a UK company? Oh my, those poor pelicans and dolphins and other birds covered with oil. All that Dawn dish washing soap! I should have bought stock! But didn't I read about some microbes thriving on eating the oil? And don't those microbes get eaten by other species? And don't those species get eaten by other species? And doesn't oil leak all over the world into the oceans? And other chemicals as well? And please don't forget all those fishies that crap in the oceans and use it as a sewer! Shame! You don't drink that water do you? It's polluted! But isn't this just nature in action? Some die, some thrive!
and the spread of pathogens (by humans)
Yes, our diseases do sometimes kill other critters. Especially those in our ape family. But don't forget about all those people killed by pig pathogens. And all those humans killed by bird pathogens. If we hadn't evolved such superior brains to fight these pathogens, then we would probably be on the list. But isn't this natural?
Genetic entropy is not on the list.
It's not? Oh let me inform you....It most definitely is!
Genetic resource impacts of habitat loss and degradation; reconciling empirical evidence and predicted theory for neotropical trees
The theoretical impacts of anthropogenic habitat degradation on genetic resources have been well articulated. Here we use a simulation approach to assess the magnitude of expected genetic change, and review 31 studies of 23 neotropical tree species to assess whether empirical case studies conform to theory. Major differences in the sensitivity of measures to detect the genetic health of degraded populations were obvious. Most studies employing genetic diversity (nine out of 13) found no significant consequences, yet most that assessed progeny inbreeding (six out of eight), reproductive output (seven out of 10) and fitness (all six) highlighted significant impacts. These observations are in line with theory, where inbreeding is observed immediately following impact, but genetic diversity is lost slowly over subsequent generations, which for trees may take decades. Studies also highlight the ecological, not just genetic, consequences of habitat degradation that can cause reduced seed set and progeny fitness. Unexpectedly, two studies examining pollen flow using paternity analysis highlight an extensive network of gene flow at smaller spatial scales (less than 10 km). Gene flow can thus mitigate against loss of genetic diversity and assist in long-term population viability, even in degraded landscapes. Unfortunately, the surveyed studies were too few and heterogeneous to examine concepts of population size thresholds and genetic resilience in relation to life history. Future suggested research priorities include undertaking integrated studies on a range of species in the same landscapes; better documentation of the extent and duration of impact; and most importantly, combining neutral marker, pollination dynamics, ecological consequences, and progeny fitness assessment within single studies.
Genetics and conservation biology
Abstract
Conservation genetics encompasses genetic management of small populations, resolution of taxonomic uncertainties and
management units, and the use of molecular genetic analyses in forensics and to understanding species’ biology. The role of
genetic factors in extinctions of wild populations has been controversial, but evidence now shows that they make important
contributions to extinction risk. Inbreeding has been shown to cause extinctions of wild populations, computer projections
indicate that inbreeding depression has important effects on extinction risk, and most threatened species show signs of genetic deterioration. Inappropriate management is likely to result if genetic factors are ignored in threatened species management
Genetic adaptation to captivity in species conservation
programs
Abstract
As wild environments are often inhospitable (doesn't sound like just humans does it?), many species have to be captive-bred to save them from extinction. In captivity, species adapt genetically to the captive environment and these genetic adaptations are overwhelmingly deleterious when populations are returned to wild environments. I review empirical evidence on (i) the genetic basis of adaptive changes in captivity, (ii) factors affecting the extent of genetic adaptation to captivity, and (iii) means for minimizing its deleterious impacts. Genetic adaptation to captivity is primarily due to rare alleles that in the wild were deleterious and partially recessive. The extent of adaptation to captivity depends upon selection intensity, genetic diversity, effective population size and number of generation in captivity, as predicted by quantitative genetic theory. Minimizing generations in captivity provides a highly effective means for minimizing genetic adaptation to captivity, but is not a practical option for most animal species. Population fragmentation and crossing replicate captive populations provide practical means for minimizing the deleterious effects of genetic adaptation to captivity upon populations reintroduced into the wild. Surprisingly, equalization of family sizes reduces the rate of genetic adaptation, but not the deleterious impacts upon reintroduced populations. Genetic adaptation to captivity is expected to have major effects on reintroduction success for species that have spent many generations in captivity. This issue deserves a much higher priority than it is currently receiving.
Now there is no question that genetic entropy happens and it plays an important part in extinction. And you know what Granny? Humans don't create any genetic entropy. All we are doing is trying to help the poor critters.
So you have a catch 22. High levels of natural selection (inhospitality) cause reduction in population size, which can lead to extinction. Right? However, if we relax natural selection (for Percy) in captive environments, then we allow deleterious mutations and genetic entropy to be propogated into the population which leads to extinction. You can't win. So the evidence is right before you. Species are going extinct , and we may not be able to do anything about it.
Now my question to you is why can't they adapt? That's your belief about neo-Darwinian Theory in the past. Through evo history we have multiple extinction events which lead to new species. Each speciation event being a small population with inbreeding inevitable. Why did they survive and thrive in the imagined past, when animals can't survive and thrive with these downturns today? And isn't the great KT extinction which led to the evolution of all the mammal species we see today? So isn't extinction a good thing? Why are you trying to stop it? Let it happen, and maybe we will evolve into superior beings. And we'll have lots of new species running around.
I don't think 1.5 degrees reaches the level of a great asteroid striking the earth does it? So go ahead an kill the whales! Stop relaxing natural selection (for Percy). Go ahead an make fur coats! Kill those polar bears and warm the oceans! Let humans die! We have to many of them any way! It's the natural way! It is the way of nature in the supposed past, and it needs to be the way of nature today!
It astonishes me that a Christian, who, one assumes, believes that God placed us in stewardship over the animals, would be so keen to spread misinformation about the loss of biodiversity.
Or could it be the Christians that are telling you the truth about genetic entropy, which the evidence clearly suggests! Extinctions are in our past. They will be in our future! It is the Christian principle of stewardship that seeks to preserve these species even though we may not be capable. The evolutionist principle is in direct opposition to preservation. It is altrusitic! And it is contradictory for the origin of species.....
Here, read
your just so story of history and tell me if man cause the 99% of extinct species to become extinct. He didn't.
Largely because of these mass extinctions, it is estimated that of all the species that have existed on Earth during the past 3.5 billion years, 99 percent have become extinct because of natural causes.
And what led to the great bio diversity.....EXTINCTIONS! So praise the nature god and let those extinctions happen so we can all get back to evolving!
™ Version 4.2
(1)