Invasive species and survival of the fittest spin-off

Faith & Science Conversation
21

@Relates,

With all due respect, I’m not sure you are interested in the facts.

It is a FACT that very often animal males compete violently with each other for food, territory and mating privileges. Fact, yes?

So, how is it that you think natural selection ignores this kind of violence?

It is a FACT that very often animal females violently contend with new males (or males rival to the mates of these females) to protect their offspring from being killed.

So, how is it thatyou thnk natural selection ignores this kind of violence?

You seem to make up rules based on your religious belief … rather than on observational evidence.

22

@gbrooks9

We are talking about science and not just a collection of facts. To find out what is going on here we need to see how natural selection works in similar, but different creatures.

Let us look at lions and tigers. They are both “big” cats, but they life in different parts of the world ion different environments and different “life styles.” Lions do have a more violent life style. Lions live in a pride ruled by the alpha male who rule the females who do the hunting of live prey in a social manner. The male to too big and slow to hunt.

However the male uses his strength and bulk to defended the corpses pf dead animals from other scavengers until the lions have their fill. He also protects the pride from others and maintains order in the family. As a way of keeping order the alpha male the mate of all the females in the pride.

Even though the Alpha male is supposed to have a sexual monopoly on his females close observers have noticed that the females so have intercourse in the jungle with other males, and about half of the cubs do not belong to the Alpha as determined by DNA.

Tigers on the other hand live and hunt in pairs. The male and female are nearly the same size, while the male lion is much bigger than the females. The males do not compete, like the lions do. The competition of male lions for leadership plays an important role in adapting lions to their ecological niche.

The lions live on the open African plain living off herds of animals. The females work together to trap and kill the prey, but all this food attacks others too who would like to steal the meat so they need to help of the larger male. Also they need to scavenge to meet the needs of the pride so the Alpha prowls the plain at night to find dead animals to steal or scavenger and beat off the hyenas and dogs.

The tigers live in the dense Indian jungle. Unlike other cats they love the water. They do their own hunting together, so they do not live in a group or have a leader or conflict over sex.

This demonstrates that what is forming each species is its ecological niche, rather than conflict or the lack of conflict among members of the species.

23

@Relates

It’s a good discussion, Roger. But I think the more accurate way of writing that sentence would be as follows:

"This demonstrates that what is forming each species is its ecological niche …

. . . with varying strategies for greater or lesser conflict between males and males, females and females and males and females."

.
.
This is not an “EITHER - OR” logic… but you keep attempting to make it so.

24

@gbrooks9

George, you are mesmerized by struggle. It is the fact that the ecological niche shapes the species. You are right it is not an either/or, but it is not a both/and either. It is a simple reality.

1 Like
25

@Relates

Roger, if it isn’t either/or or both/and/neither … I have no idea what you are trying to say.

26

It is a fact that ecological niche shape a species. It is also a fact that the shaping occurs primarily through competition between members of the species.

27

@glipsnort

I have given two examples above, the lion and tiger and how they were shaped by their different environments.

Give me some of yours.

28

Roger, suppose the environment inhabited by lions didn’t have a top predator for some reason, and something like a tiger was living nearby. If some of the tigers moved into the empty niche, how do you think they would be shaped by the environment to become more like lions? What would actually happen to them?

29

@glipsnort

Excuse me, but for good measure, how about the moon is made of green cheese? We can not bend nature any way we want it and think we are doing science. We cannot just pretend that the lions are not the top predator and that their species has not been shaped by their ecology to be the top predator in its niche.

Tigers are not equipped to hunt on the plain, and lions are not equipped to hunt in the jungle. That is the way that evolution, or natur5e, or God made them. It is not based on conflict, but on efficiency and adaption.

There is a cat that does hunt more like the tiger than the lion on the plain and that is the cheetah. However cheetahs are not in direct competition with the lions, because they prey on Thompson’s Gazelles, which are too small and fast for the lions. Still the lions steal their kill when they can and give them a very rough time.

It is their environment and how they adapt to it that makes the tiger, the lion, and the cheetah what they are. When the environment changes they must adapt or cease to flourish. Species are fading today because their niches are disappearing because of human activity. It has nothing to do with conflict and everything to do with ecology.

30

The difference is that the moon really isn’t made of green cheese, while organisms really do enter new environments to which they are not already adapted.

You haven’t answered the question: how do you think lions became adapted to their environment?

31

@glipsnort,

I do not think that this statement is true. If I am thrown into some water and I am not adapted to it, meaning I cannot swim, I will drown.

All creatures are adapted to their native environment. How well that carries over to a different niche is another question.

We call a species which successfully adapts to a new ecological niches, usually not too different from its old one an invasive species. It usually displaces one or more old species. What you suggested about the tiger and the lion before was not possible, because there is no way the tiger could displace the lion for ecological reasons.

In terms of how did the lion develop into the species that it is, it is hard to say, even though we can see the result. It would seem that this was a long process of symbiosis between the land, the climate, and the creatures of the land.

The African veldt is unique and very old. No doubt the African lion developed over the millennia in relationship to the other creatures of the veldt until they are what they are today. It is natural selection or trial and error that leads to adaption, not conflict.

If you want a more specific understanding of how changes in ecology can direct evolution, please see my BioLogos essay “From Dinosaurs to Birds.”

32

@Relates,

Roger, I don’t think “Mister Glip” is making too radical a statement: “… organisms do enter new environments to which they are not already adapted…”

Isn’t this practically definitional? If a pair of mainland birds is blown offshore by a storm to a distant island … I think it is fair to say that in most cases, the birds have not “already adapted” to the ecological niche of the island. Wouldn’t you agree? … in most cases?

However, to say the new-comer species usually displaces one or more old species might be an over-statement. I would say “frequently” or “many times” - - but I don’t think it is fair to use the term “usually” in this application. But if we use the term “invasive”, it is usually meant that the species DOES fit some aspects of the new environment nicely.

But even an Invasive Species probably has a few additional adjustments in its existential arc to perfect the Bird’s integration into the new environment.

33

Environments change. Species migrate. New islands form, and are settled by random immigrant species. So yes, my statement was true.

Then you didn’t read my suggestion correctly. I asked what would happen to the tiger if there were no lions already present.

I think Darwin explained it pretty well 150+ years ago.

How does natural selection lead to adaptation without competition? You still haven’t answered how species become adapted to their environments. Evolutionary biology has an answer, but that answer involves competition between members of the same species. You seem to be rejecting that answer, so I’m trying to find out what you’re proposing in its place.

1 Like
34

Thank you for your response.

Immigrant species are not purely random because they must meet a level of adaption before they can establish a foothold in an environment. That is my point. The tiger will not be able to migrate to the arctic or the South Pacific or the veldt because it is not adapted for these places.

It is not that that environments don’t change, because they do, but because species are not easily adaptable.

Then you didn’t read my suggestion correctly. I asked what would happen to the tiger if there were no lions already present.

My response was that species are creatures of their environment. One cannot just transpose lions into the tigers’ environment and vice versa.

Evolutionary biology has an answer, but that answer involves competition between members of the same species. You seem to be rejecting that answer, so I’m trying to find out what you’re proposing in its place.

Science does not deal in general answers, but specific examples which illustrates principles. I have provides these for you. I have asked George to provide his examples for me, but he has failed to do so. I thought that you were going to help him out, but you did not.

I do not need any help in finding examples of how species work together. Wilson recently wrote an important book, The Social Conquest of the Earth, about how cooperation enables species to adapt.

For the lions the pride works together to hunt and maintain themselves. For the tigers the pair hunts together. For the cheetah the individual hunts, and while it fits the lifestyle the cheetah’s life is much more precarious than the others.

It is trial and error that leads to adaption, not conflict, that leads to evolutionary change.

35

Siberian tigers do pretty well in boreal forest, so I see no reason that they couldn’t adapt to the arctic. What would prevent them from adapting to the veldt?

Which still does not answer my question. I asked what would happen if there were no lions (or other top predators) on the savanna, and tigers lived nearby. What would happen?

Newton, Darwin, Maxwell and Einstein would all like to have a word with you about what science does and doesn’t do.

I don’t need any help finding examples of cooperation either. But since no one has denied that cooperation occurs, or is part of evolution, it’s not clear why you bring it up. What I’m challenging is your suggestion that evolution does not involve competition.

Okay, now you’ve started to answer the question. Now, what happens to the trials that aren’t as good? What happens to a lion that isn’t as good at catching prey as the other lions?

1 Like
36

@glipsnort

Response: So why didn’t they? Why are the polar bears the top predator?

What gives the lions the advantage on the veldt is the cooperative system of hunting by the females with the support of the male. Tigers do not have this, nor can it be developed quickly.

I don’t need any help finding examples of cooperation either. But since no one has denied that cooperation occurs, or is part of evolution, it’s not clear why you bring it up. What I’m challenging is your suggestion that evolution does not involve competition.

Response: Darwin’s concept of Survival of the Fittest was that there was a relentless struggle for survival among all members of the species. In the Origin he referred to it as the War of Nature (against itself?). This is the theory you are defending, even though it is true that a house divided against itself cannot stand.

Now when I have been talking, I have said that evolution is not based on conflict, while you are using the word competition. I have noted that lions do have competition for leadership, so I have not denied the role of competition in this system, but my point was that the basis the success for the pride is cooperation between the female lions supported by the male.

In summary Darwin’s formulated the concept of Survival of the Fittest, which you accepted above as relentless struggle. Even though this has been discussed and the Survival of the Fittest has been criticized, I am not aware that it has been rejected and replaced. In fact the Dawkins’ Selfish Gene , which appears to be the dominant view re-emphasizes that view of struggle. It is only recently that Wilson’s Social view goes against the dominant position.

Now, what happens to the trials that aren’t as good? What happens to a lion that isn’t as good at catching prey as the other lions?

Response: So you want to bring competition into the picture. Of course you know that the role of the lion is not to catch prey, that is the role of the lionesses. Still it is not a competition to see which lioness catches the most prey. On the other hand I am sure that they lionesses who work together to hunt most effectively do receive some rewards, and those who are not as effective are assigned more baby sitting duties.

It seems that genetic changes are often more subtle than obvious, or they are marginal in difference, but add up when implemented over a long period of time. Some individuals do better than others as they contribute to the common benefit. Even though it doesn’t always work out in every situation, over time the odds favor positive change.

37

Because the top predator niche is already filled. I was thinking of land predators, where wolves occupy the niche. If the niche is empty, a species can adapt pretty quickly to fill it. It’s only been ~500,000 years since polar bears diverged from forest omnivores, and now they’re marine predators.

Nothing in Wilson’s views removes natural selection as the mechanism for adaptive evolution.

That says almost nothing about the mechanism you’re talking about. What does it mean for some individual to do better than others? What limits lion populations? Do they have infinite resources, or do they have to compete (either within a pride or between prides) for limited resources? What happens to lions (by which I mean both males and females, by the way) who lose that competition?

38

Response: Bees and ants are not in conflict with their fellows for food and water. Stop making pronouncements and start giving me evidence of how and where Survival of the Fittest works.

What limits lion populations? Do they have infinite resources, or do they have to compete (either within a pride or between prides) for limited resources? What happens to lions (by which I mean both males and females, by the way) who lose that competition?

Response: That which limits the predator populations is the number of prey. When the prey population flourishes, so does the predator population. The main thing that limits the prey population is the availability of food, which is based on water. The absence of water also limits the strength of both predator and prey. Again it comes back to the ecology, rather than competition for prey.

When the prey suffer from drought which limits food and water, and the savanna can become very dry, the lions suffer too. They have a social hierarchy which protects the top, the alpha male and his consort. Those who lose out are the old, the young, the sick, and the disabled, who are not necessarily genetically less fit.

I just came across an articles on a study done on the evolution of butterflies in Finland which attributes their evolutionary change exclusively to environmental change, not conflict or competition. Look at this link onforb.es/10JC981

39

@Relates

Roger, what you prove with this case is that Ecology AND Competition work together in the process of Natural Selection.

40

@gbrooks9

How so?