Natural Limitation to Evolutionary Processes (2/14/05)

this may have been mentioned, but . . .what Paulk was calling a normal event would be the extinction of the cheetah. We severely reduced their numbers, and had no conservation programs stepped in, they would have been hunted to extinction. Even if there was no hunting but no conservation program, the cheetah would have died off. But not entirely becasue of a decrease in genetic variation, but becasue there are too few scattered in too few locales to bring their population back up without our help. If they ever have high numbers again, I would not be surprised to find increased genetic variation.when you say that the cheetah reduction in variation is the inexorable trend that should destroy evolution you missed his point.

As far as I know, that sort of symbiotic relationship is very important to ecology and evolution includes it. When Darwin was at Madagascar, he noticed a plant with the nectary eleven inches inside of the flower. The only way to get ot it would be to have a beak eleven inches or a proboscis eleven inches, and it turned out that their is a moth with such a probosicis. Survival of the fittest is within a species--though who produce the most offspring are said to be better fit. This is because organisms produce more offspring than the habitat can support, leading to a competition for resources. Since producing sperm or egg takes a good deal of energy and time, those who can outcompete others for resources will invariable produce more offspring, passing on those advantageous (and non-advantageous) traits of the parents. Since the moth with an eleven inch probosis can get the food, he will pass on his genes. What was once a mutation is now the norm. Oh, and have you ever heard of co-evolution? It's pretty much what I just explained.