More than 100,000 rare gorillas found in Congo

[Huckleberry]

Why is hybridizing between species "more disturbing" in and of itself?

Or are you only disturbed by it because of a possible human cause of the hybridization?

 

[GT WT]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[Uninformed]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[Victory Lap]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[GT WT]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[Uninformed]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[MaduroUTMB]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[Uninformed]

MD,

The terminology GT is using comes from Jeremy Rifkin who is a noted anti-biotech activist. It is unscientific and was probably learned in some misguided ecology class.

When Jeremy Rifkin talks about genetic pollution he is referring to undesirable genetic characteristics, for example the intermixing of africanized honey bees with native honey bees whereby native populations become more aggressive. He ignores advantageous changes to a gene pool that might create hardier species. More importantly, however, he places a value on genetic changes that are inherently random, without value. Most conservationists disagree with the thought process.

 

[GT WT]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[GT WT]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[GT WT]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[Uninformed]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[GT WT]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[Uninformed]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[GT WT]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[Uninformed]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[GT WT]

Uninformed,

I would really like to understand why you have problems with conservation genetics. Is it that it is sometimes used as a challenge to development?

e.g.,The Link

 

[Uninformed]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[CHIEFLAZYBOY]

Maybe we can cross the Spotted Owl with a rare gorilla from the Congo, and the offspring can kick the **** out of the Barred Owls.

Problem solved...


Chief

 

[GT WT]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[Hayden_Horn]

i'm no scientist, but "conservation genetics" seems to be a way of trying to stop nature's way of keeping this machine called earth full of critters. species interbreed, and new species are born. it seems that this has probably happened millions of times over the course of time, and "protecting" species from "evolving" seems to be...i don't know. kind of fundamentally anti-evolution? even more, it seems to be kind of absurd. wildlife is constantly evolving, and sometimes that means that species go extinct and sometimes that means that two branches of evolution fuse together like trees planted closely together.

 

[GT WT]

HaydenHorn,

Conservation genetics is population genetics applied to management issues. The goal of this science is to understand the genetic consequences of human interventions. Stocking smallmouth bass into the Guadelupe River has genetic consequences for the Guadelupe bass, the two species interbreed and over time we are left with a hybrid swarm. We've lost the Guadelupe bass.

Hybridization is natural. It occurs. But it can be due to human activity. Indiscriminate stocking of Pacific salmon species in the early 20th century led to loss of distinct stocks of salmon. As a consequence, the salmon fishery suffered. Loss of genetic resources was only one reason for the collapse of salmon stocks - habitat degradation and overfishing also played major roles - but loss of genetic integrity was also involved.

Conservation genetics isn't trying to protect species from evolving. Rather, conservation genetics tries to understand the impact of human activities on genetic diversity. Conservation biology tries to conserve biological diversity. Conservation genetics, a branch of conservation bioloogy, tries to conserve genetic diversity.

 

[Hayden_Horn]

thanks for the explanation - i understand a lot more clearly now.

 

[CottonEyedHorn]

In reply to:

---

---