Science for public understanding first draft

1661 words
Should an endangered species be allowed to die out?
Evolution, religion, beliefs, ethics and of course science. Pivotal building blocks
in human opinion. Converging and corresponding constantly, however, we are
faced with a conundrum because as humans with different beliefs, we still face a
responsibility of looking after the environment we live in. What Im about to talk
about here may be controversial, but regardless of the issues surrounding this, I
shall try and present a balanced argument back with scientific fact.
Evolution is one of the most controversial and equally convincing theories to
emerge, ever. And it touches upon some very interesting issues as we look at our
constantly changing environment. Evolution is all about the measure of fitness,
how a species is suited to its environment: adaptation.
Before we go further we should understand how evolution works, at the tiniest
level possible. Well look at e-coli. One of the most dangerous pathogens that face
us today. It exists normally in cow dung and traces can be found in beef. It is
particularly dangerous with its ability to develop resistance to anti-biotics. Heres
how it is thought to do this.
- Lets imagine a petri-dish infested with millions of e-coli. And anti-biotics are
poured into that dish.
- anti-biotics work by eating at the enzymes that allow the bacteria to live.
- Lets say out of the millions of e-coli one bacteria manages to acquire a
mutation in its DNA, (these are totally random and happen at any time, but
because e-coli multiply so quickly, the changes can be witnessed on a normal
timescale) (pic below) and produces a different type of enzyme for the job. The
anti-biotic can no longer effectively attack that enzyme because its different.
That bacteria begins to multiply again and develops immunity. This is also the
main reason it is not advised to take anti-biotics unless it is absolutely necessary.

Image showing e-coli

As a classic example I will use the Peppered Moth, which is a classic example in
showcasing adaptation at its finest. Before the industrial revolution around the
19th century most bark on trees was predominantly light coloured. Therefore a
form of the moth known as the typica was dominant. Though easy to spot
against a dark background, as the image below shows, it was light coloured and
very hard to spot against dark backgrounds. However around 1848, a new form
of the moth began to appear, it was a dark coloured moth, the carbonara.As
shown in the image below, it was dark, and just as the typica was difficult to
see against light backgrounds, this was difficult to see against dark backgrounds.
Many scientists and experts began to speculate that this was due to the
industrial activity and the landscape of the area. In other words: the
environment. This was a result of the pollution, smoke particles and soot would
build up on the once light bark and darken it. Therefore exposing the once
illusive typica variant. So in the cities where there was pollution the
carbonara variant was prevalent, but the "typica was prevalent in the
countryside were bark was lighter. The exposed moths would unfortunately be
eaten by birds.
Images of the two variants of the moth

The typica form of the moth was visible against dark

background

The carbonara variant was visible against light

backgrounds
However the story does not end there. As pollution levels increased, the
carbonara variant became more widespread, but just as it dominated, it
declined so suddenly too. Why?, because it could not adapt to a changing
environment. As times rolled, cleaner fuels were discovered and pollution went
down. Dark bark became something of the past, so did the carbonara moth. It
failed to adapt to the environment and was eaten by birds. In the book: BIOLOGY
by Miller & Levine, page 298: the work of Kettlewell is shown. He carried out
experiments on the moths came to this conclusion:
It was logical to conclude that when soot darkened the tree trunks in the area, natural
selection caused the dark-coloured moths to become more common.

This is all to prove and validate that if a species is not adapted to its
environment, then it should be allowed to die out, and go extinct. Of course as
humans, we are the most dominant species on earth. And yes we take it upon
ourselves to conserve species for future but is that not harming the ecosystem?
Could endangered species be a way of the eco-system itself evolving, therefore
scratching the need for that particular species in the future? As humans it is
pivotal to remember that as much as we would love to conserve the endangered
species, new ones emerge unknowingly. These new species being discovered
could be the evolutionary product of the constantly changing modern
environment. Also, to put it mildly, humans are animals too. Humans are part of
the eco-system, humans are part of the global food chain, and humans are a
species, just far more advanced than anything out there. Therefore if a species is
endangered, regardless of human activity, it has failed to adapt. If it is
endangered from poaching, then it has failed, for we humans are animals, and
that animal by rules of nature should develop a defence against it right?
However, there is a twist. Because nature is both the most and least understood
force on earth. Therefore it sends mixed messages day in day out, the harsh
weather is natures way of telling us to curb our binges on hydrocarbons. And
despite the first argument, we must recognize that the ecosystem is in a delicate
balance. Elimination of a species could mean the sudden increase of its prey, and
the sudden decline of another species. It could be a knock-on effect that slowly
builds up and catches up with the human species in the end. This is where the
science comes in. Lets look at some statistics.
15,589 species (7,266 animal species and 8,323 plant and lichen species) are
now considered at risk of extinction an increase of 3,330 species since the
2003 Red List. The increase is largely due to the fact that scientists have finally
been able to assess all of the world's amphibians.
One in three amphibians and almost half of turtles and tortoises are known to
be threatened with extinction, along with one in four mammals, one in five
sharks and rays, and one in eight birds.

The numbers of threatened species are increasing across almost all major
taxonomic groups.

Statistical diagram showing the

widespread distribution and fraction of endangered species over the overall
species of major animals in the global region.
These statics were only taken in 2004! 3 years ago, I would hate to imagine the
situation now. Amphibians and mammals are the most threatened with 1/5 of the
species in danger already as the above diagram shows. Central America, south +
east and central Asia are the biggest culprits with an astonishingly large fraction
of species in danger.
The food chain is one of the most interactive systems in nature, with the
presence of primary, secondary and tertiary predators where energy is
transferred from level to level. Now for a minute lets imagine this food chain
lacking a quarter to a third of most of its members. That would mean a boom
in \nother species. Now this is not necessarily good, because different species
feed on similar food sources. A boom of a species could mean less of a food
source, resulting in a decline of another species. It can be a double jeopardy of
the food source was another species. Then with lack of food, that dominant
species also dies out, creating a knock-on effect as earlier mentioned. This could
be detrimental to our well-being, and to our environment. Trees/ grass relying on
browsing and grazing respectively to grow/stay healthy. This could all be lost if
action is not taken.

Graph showing percentage totals of endangered species 2002

As the graph shows, a very large percentage of species are in danger. Global
diversity is at threat here!
So whats my final take on this? Well it is very difficult to take a side because
there are always 2 sides to a story. However I feel that killing off species would
be something unfavourable. However, maybe moving the species to another
environment where they would fit in better is more suitable i feel. Like for
example the Pere Davids deer, brought from China thrived in captivity, but was
extinct in China in the wild 1000 years ago. However an article by the WWF
shows evidence that it still exists and is breeding successfully, today, meaning it
has found a way to adapt to its new environment. And now reproduces. Therefore
I feel our activities give us the responsibility of giving species a second chance, a
new home so that we keep natures delicate balance intact and co-exist in
harmony with other species.

Evaluation
http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/E/Evolution.html
2; http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/Moths/moths.html
this is a website built around one of the most famous books BIOLOGY by Miller
and Levine, it gives information that has been argued and also hold the
contradictory information on the same page. Its all fact, but more down to
opinion.
3: BIOLOGY by Miller & Levine,
page 298:
Famous book that has been renowned for its content. Reliable information

4: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6502368/
^ renowned news website that gives information backed by experts
5:
http://www.uwsp.edu/geo/faculty/ritter/images/biosphere/great_lakes_food_web_
big05_EPA_GLNPO.jpg
^images
6: http://science.howstuffworks.com/evolution4.htm
^ website with the science on how almost everything works. It is run by science
experts and is regularly updated.
7:
http://marineecology.wcp.muohio.edu/earthsys02/extinction/data/pictures/2k2gra
ph.jpg
^ images
8: http://journals.cambridge.org/production/action/cjoGetFulltext?
fulltextid=104622
journal from Cambridge University, a renowned academic institution with high
level science.
9: http://www.panda.org/news_facts/newsroom/successes/index.cfm?
uNewsID=24017
^ article by the WWF, a renowned organisation at the forefront of animal
conservation.
I selected my sources carefully, and i feel they were reliable to an acceptable
degree, they all provided accurate information.