A thought on the big moose post. - Page 2

SackUp · #11 10-08-2005, 04:58 PM

This idea negates the fact that most animals are not killed by humans. Most animals have natural predators which require them to be the biggest, fastest, and strongest.

Almost all of our food is mass produced. We are not getting most food from a game hunter.

There is no way that evolution is making a trend towards weaker and smaller animals...not at this point anyhow. Not unless natural predators get guns and start going for big kills only.

Further, it takes a long as time for any major trends in evolution to occur, not just a few hundred years.

Paluka · #12 10-08-2005, 05:00 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Wow. I had never thought about this. I am googling for research right now. Very interesting. Thanks for posting a very interesting point to consider and discuss. I will return to this thread after having done some reading.

[/ QUOTE ]

I had never thought of this either, and I'm surprised that this could actually be a big effect.

SackUp · #13 10-08-2005, 05:01 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Wow. I had never thought about this. I am googling for research right now. Very interesting. Thanks for posting a very interesting point to consider and discuss. I will return to this thread after having done some reading.

[/ QUOTE ]

Damn you diablo. Here is one link from Nature which is a top journal.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...4AF5FAF9FDAE00

[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting article, but I would predict this type of study would only hold true for animals with very few natural predators and who do not rely on their size and strength to do their own hunting - i.e. grazers or herbivores.

I highly doubt this will hold true for many fish or something like a deer.

wacki · #14 10-08-2005, 05:06 PM

Evolution takes hundreds of years when the environment is stable.

Bacteria under a UV lamp evolve in days if not hours. I know I've done hundreds of experiments. It's all about the strength of the selective mechanism. Humans are a very strong selective mechanism. You also vastly underestimate the impact humans have on the planet. There has been a 90% decrease in large oceanic fish since 1960. Google it for articles. There is so much wrong with your post it's hard to know where to begin.

DcifrThs · #15 10-08-2005, 05:06 PM

ok, time for you kids with your college's library to get crackin.

please link/post J-Stor results for the following searches:

1) evolution + hunting

2) Hunter Selection + effect

3) [censored] sapien + Evolution+ hunting

this should give us a nice bredth of papers on the subject.

thanks guys.

Barron

wacki · #16 10-08-2005, 05:08 PM

[ QUOTE ]

Interesting article, but I would predict this type of study would only hold true for animals with very few natural predators and who do not rely on their size and strength to do their own hunting - i.e. grazers or herbivores.

I highly doubt this will hold true for many fish or something like a deer.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, watch strange days on planet earth w/ edward norton.

djoyce003 · #17 10-08-2005, 05:16 PM

I can speak to the whitetail deer portion of this.

On a public land type situation, where there is typically lots of hunting pressure, this isn't often an issue because most animals of young age are killed....only the smartest tend to survive and there aren't nearly as many animals with large antlers.

On private land, if there is a good management program, there are actually MORE big deer because the hunters shoot off the inferior deer in addition to the large deer, and we never shot any deer that were less than fully mature, unless they were inferior. So what you end up with is fewer deer, the bigger dominant deer are the ones that mate, and the inferior deer aren't able to pass on their genes, or they are simply dead....either way there are actually a larger number of big deer on a properly managed property than smaller deer.

SackUp · #18 10-08-2005, 05:17 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Evolution takes hundreds of years when the environment is stable.

Bacteria under a UV lamp evolve in days if not hours. I know I've done hundreds of experiments. It's all about the strength of the selective mechanism. Humans are a very strong selective mechanism. You also vastly underestimate the impact humans have on the planet. There has been a 90% decrease in large oceanic fish since 1960. Google it for articles. There is so much wrong with your post it's hard to know where to begin.

[/ QUOTE ]

Humans are definitely a HUGE selective mechanism, but moreso via endeavors other than big game hunting. I didn't say that hunting does not have an influence, but it would seem rather counterintuitive to think that animals would develop a mechanism to stop getting hunted by a limited predator (humans) compared to a natural predator which would be greatly advantaged by having its prey weaker.

Please show me some articles that where an animals gets smaller when that animal has lots of natural predators and is hunted by humans. I'm just hard pressed to see that happening. Not saying it could not be the case, I'm just don't see it happening.

SackUp · #19 10-08-2005, 05:19 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Interesting article, but I would predict this type of study would only hold true for animals with very few natural predators and who do not rely on their size and strength to do their own hunting - i.e. grazers or herbivores.

I highly doubt this will hold true for many fish or something like a deer.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, watch strange days on planet earth w/ edward norton.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was much more impressed when you quoted the Nature article.

wacki · #20 10-08-2005, 05:34 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

No, watch strange days on planet earth w/ edward norton.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was much more impressed when you quoted the Nature article.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's a well made series and your comment sounds like something a pedantic moron would say.

[ QUOTE ]

Please show me some articles that where an animals gets smaller when that animal has lots of natural predators and is hunted by humans.

[/ QUOTE ]

as far as fish:
Strange days w/ planet earth has lots of good info.
So does the bbc.

As far as land animals:

Come on man we hunt the predators. If it's a big animal we kill it. Wolves went extinct in yellowstone in 1930 and weren't replaced until recently (with much protest). Deer in most parts of the planet don't get the pressure because everyone kills the wolves. African lions and leapords recieve the same pressure from trophy hunting.

Use your brain.