Suppose wolves die off because of disease or genetic defects from inbreeding.?
963654
The US wildlife service has chosen to reintroduce the wolf back into Yellowstone and other Northern Rockies area.  It has been very successful.  I think that helping to manage what man has destroyed is a good idea.  Look at the overgrown deer population in many parts of the country - a danger to people, a nuisance with no natural enemies, and often starving.    \n\nScotland is doing the same thing.\n\nI don't think that a genetic defect or inbreeding has much to do with it.  Ultimately the lack of population would be man's fault as we encroach and destroy.  It's a red herring.
1121908
Yes, It is due to activation of oncogenes or external carcinogenic agents. These genes are present in all higher animals. Development of cancer is one of the related sign of aging also.
1005440
I would say C. The animals that died were weaker than the animals that survived. Their deaths might have occured because they did not possess the genes that enabled them to survive. The wildebeests that survived had adaptations that allowed them to better adapt to the environment.\n\nHowever, it could also be B. Perhaps the animals that died were just old and died of natural causes.\n\nIn my opinion, this question is poorly worded.
302707
Genetic mutations are always a risk when manipulating genes.\nGross malformations can occur, thus making it necessary to imprison/destroy the life created.
901776
It is E\n\nThe reason: \na) Reproductive variations lead to the "better producer" making more offspring and thus leading to more chances for their offspring to reproduce.  For this one, think of gorillas...the dominant Male (silverback) will mate with the females so it is his offspring who carry the genetics into the next generation, and the other males in the group dont pass on their genes. \n\nb) There has to be some offspring that simply don't survive...this is the whole "don't interfere and let nature take its course" thing.  This means that after the "unhealthy" individuals die, the rest (on average) will be better suited to their environment.  Think of it like this... a  human family has three babies but one of them dies; the one that died may have had a defect that shouldn't have been passed on.  Since the parents had two other babies, they have replaced themselves in the population so there will not be a net loss of population when they eventually die. \n\nc) There has to be variations in the genetics of the offspring.  This is due to the fact that for us to become better suited to our environment, there has to be a change in our genetics to produce that change.  If we were exactly like our parents, no changes could occur.\n\nd) Inheritance is hugely important.  Think about it like this: If a beneficial change develops (such as opposable thumbs), what good would it be if it couldnt be passed on to the next generation?  There must be a mechanism to pass the benefit on.  \n\ne) Even though there have been many catastrophic events that have allowed for natural selection, it is not required.  A large eruption may cause the animals who can eat more diverse variety of plants to do better than ones that can't but they may be able to out-compete the other animals anyway.
669269
I dont get this question at all. Are you asking if all those people are dying, will wild animals take over?! And if so - why?!
564749
I think so. At least at somepoint in their history anyway - they will have had predators, or illnesses that they could not fight, and so the fittest or more suited to survival will have survived, and the 'weaker' will have perished. It could be argued that if they are advanced then natural selection would apply less. For example humans don't really have any predators, and through medical intervention we can stop many ailments that would otherwise kill us: If a lion was born with an inherited disease which affected their mobility then they wouldn't survive for very long in the wild, and neither would a neandarthal human, but modern day humans could lead a full life with such an ailment.
403892
Actually even worse things than mental retardation could occur due to inbreeding.  There are "lethal" genes in human DNA which when combined=both parents have same gene, the offspring die.  Other things would be not only mental retardation but physical handicaps as well.  Basically what could happen is this.\nTake every negative thing about yourself, all the negative things about the sibling and put all that into the child that the two would create.  That is the worse case scenario.  \nYou are probably not old enough to watch the movie but you could check out "Deliverance" there are some really messed up people due to inbreeding and isolation from society.\nIt's just like a lot of the purebred dogs now have serious genetic diseases b/c of inbreeding.\nReally all you have to do is search the word inbreeding and TONS of info will come up, should answer any questions you have.
68515
the organism will die
715451
Maybe you can understand it if I put it this way as an EXAMPLE  Pure bred dogs and cats all look alike right, Mutts come in many mutations. Not saying anyone is a animal or one is better than another just the difference in DNA variations.
340423
They already are considered different species--even though they *are* genetically compatible (i.e., the hybrid is not sterile).  Some people believe that wolves and dogs are in the process of speciation--that is, they are becoming separate species, but haven't completely diverged yet.  Wolf-dog hybrids don't occur very often in nature because they have different social and mating patterns.  Nevertheless, if you stick a male and a female in heat together in a cage, eventually they're going to do it.
186338
no reproduction, human race would die out
441624
A group of animals is living in an area - foodsource = nuts. The ones with good crushing teeth will eat lots, reproduce and pass on the crushing design gene. Any with ripping design etc would be unsuccessful in gaining food and thus wouldn't reproduce and pass on the ripping gene. Eventually all members of the species have crushing teeth. Survival of the fittest etc. A lion with blunt teeth would not live long enough to pass on the genes
861509
yeah, it kinda has to.  if it didn't there would be no genetic variation, leading to a mass extinction of a species if a particular bacteria or other "bug" became its main predator.
684074
hunting an animal to extinction doesn't necessarily mean to kill every last one. it can also mean to kill so many that the ones who remain cannot continue to reproduce successfully and through processes such as inbreeding the species eventually dies off.
1158064
1) The largest species of wolf is the grey wolf.\n\n2) There is already a species of wolf in Africa, and it has been there for over 5 million years. This is the Ethiopian wolf, and it is currently far more endangered than the grey wolf. It is reasonably expected t become extinct within the next 50 years.\n\n3) There is also another species of wild dog in Africa called, African WIld Dogs. Isn't that an original name. African Wild Dogs are also seriously threatened due priamrily to the introduction of diseases from domestics dogs.\n\n4) Assuming you could successfully introduce grey wolves into Africa you would almost certainly cause the extinction of both the Ethiopian wolf and the African Wild Dog. This is why actual scientists don't simply move species around without doing a lot of research on the potential effects.\n\n5) Grey wolves could only possibly survive in the very southernmost part of Africa. Grey wolves are temperate animals and they can not tolerate high temperatures, This is why wolves are restricted to Northern India and the US and have never live din Mexico or Southern India. They simply can not hunt on warm days. You MIGHT be able to introduce grey wolves to South Africa and Libya, but that would be the absolute limit of their potential range on the continent. Grey wolves could not tolerate the heat across 90% of the continent.\n\n6) Grey wolves may have strong jaws but they are weak compared to lions and hyaenas and comparable to African Wild Dogs.\n\n7) No wolf in the world could possibly outrun a lion, that is sheer fantasy.\n\n8) Grey wolves would have absolutely no chance defending themselves against hyaenas. African Wild Dogs have evolved to form packs of 10-20 adults to give them a fighting chance against hyaenas and they live in burrows. The largest grey wolf packs consist of less than 8 adults and grey wolve slive above ground. Grey wolves would be exterminated in short order by hyaenas.\n\n9) Wolves can’t live in jungles. Wolves have never lived in jungles. Wolves are temperate forest and grassland predators. They can not survive in jungles.\n\n10) It amazes me that you call yourself a student and claim to be concerned about wolves yet apparently know nothing about their behaviour or habitat requirements, or about related species already native to Africa.\n\nIn summary, any plan to introduce wolves to Africa is simply silly. Sorry, there’s no other way to describe it. It is hideously flawed on every level.
440640
The average lifespan for a wolf in the wild is only 9 years. Wolves in captivity live much longer. They reach sexual maturity at about 2 years of age and have finished growing.