Comments on: Are Humans an Invasive Species?

By: sean

sean — Thu, 31 Jan 2013 02:36:31 +0000

HUMANS ARE INVASIVE!!! Africa is the cradle of mankind the earliest fossils point to this place. Africa also happens to be home to some seriously dangerous animals and diseases. Lions,leopards,Cheetahs,Hyenas,Nile Crocodile,Great White shark, spitting cobras, Hippos,Puff Adder, Chimpanzees, Elephants,Black Mamba,Cape Buffalo, Malaria,Dengue,Yellow fever,AIDS,Hepatitis B,Cholera,Typhoid…all documented to have killed large amounts of people. Why do all of these dangerous animals,diseases exist in Africa? TO KEEP HUMAN POPULATIONS IN CHECK. No where else in the world are there that many dangerous creatures except for Africa where humans are native to.

By: Dr. Bondopher

Dr. Bondopher — Thu, 24 Jan 2013 18:45:43 +0000

If you follow the anthropological evidence which strongly suggests we’re not native from this planet, you’ll find experts on the subject who argue that we were possibly brought here and genetically engineered with the DNA of native species’. This would offer the plausible argument that we are infact an invasive species by satisfying both the second and third conditions per the collaborative definition. I would contend that nothing within the definition of invade, or invasive suggests that outside influence is required. Therefore condition three is inherently satisfied. Condition two is also satisfied if you follow anthropological evidence showing that we as a species originally developed in Africa, from where we spread, which satisfies condition two. In summary, whether or not you believe, or follow the theories of our non-native nature to this planet, we would still be considered an invasive species. However, the rapid evolution, as suggested, does indeed fly in the face of every Darwinian Evolutionist and Anthropologist challenging the many theories they support still today. The convenient “missing link” theory they fall back on is fundamentally flawed. Decades upon decades of searching has delivered much evidence and evolutionary record of the native bipedal species on this planet. However, our skeletal structure is too far removed from any considerable similarities. The amount of evolutionary evidence required to explain the numerous differences between us and them is far to great to be satisfied by a single “missing link”. The fact that not a single shred of evidence having been discovered, in spite of all our searching, to support the “missing link” theory is compelling enough to raise the question, “are we truly native to this planet”. According to the widely accepted theories on evolution, we’d have to accept that this question is at least valid. Yet it is not officially pursued. Why not?

By: Rocky Cookus

Rocky Cookus — Thu, 07 Jun 2012 20:54:55 +0000

Seems like this argument is a little slippery and and does not focus attention on the nasty business humans do.

According to Wikipedia, a secondary definition of the term invasive species “…broadens the boundaries to include indigenous or native species, with the non-native ones, that disrupt by a dominant colonization of a particular habitat…”

There should be no argument about the devastating influence of humans as the most destructive, non-natural force on earth.

By: eliot kersgaard

eliot kersgaard — Mon, 16 Apr 2012 03:16:01 +0000

On #2.
The author notes we had colonized every continent by 15,000 years ago, which is about what contemporary estimates indicate. Anatomically modern humans originated (according to Wikipedia) around 200,000 years ago, in Africa of course. Our adaptability made it easy for us to quickly (in evolutionary timescales) colonize the entire planet. However, shouldn’t we still be considered non-native to regions outside Africa? It is possible (even inevitable) that within another 5,000 years we will have colonized Mars. Would that make us native to Mars? I should think not. We would be invaders, just as we were invaders to the Western Hemisphere, and to a lesser extent, Asia and Europe.

By: michael garabaldi

michael garabaldi — Fri, 22 Jul 2011 04:50:20 +0000

While humans may not meet every component needed to qualify as an invasive species, we are clearly the most destructive. However, disqualifying the human race as an invasive species says more about our tendency of creating rigid categories than to whether we belong on the list of “invasive species.”

OK then, we’re not an invasive specie but something far worse!

By: We could be heroes | TheIndependent.ca

We could be heroes | TheIndependent.ca — Wed, 22 Jun 2011 09:32:10 +0000

[...] starting to think of us as the worst invasive species; taking over and wrecking any environment we find ourselves in. These are not the kind of thoughts [...]

By: jiobrien

jiobrien — Tue, 01 Feb 2011 01:56:54 +0000

Some people, even experts, may not define people (humans)as invasive, but we are invasive, environmentally destructive, and perhaps the greatest perpetrators of the destruction of species diversity on this small planet. There are more people than locust, the architypal plague beast.

By: Tweets that mention Are Humans an Invasive Species? | Surprising Science -- Topsy.com

Mon, 31 Jan 2011 19:02:05 +0000

[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by SmithsonianMag, Sarah Zielinski and SmithsonianRSS, vera van dalen. vera van dalen said: RT @SarahZielinski: Some readers have claimed that humans are an invasive species. Technically, they're wrong. http://bit.ly/eOTVjy [...]

By: Josephine

Josephine — Mon, 31 Jan 2011 15:58:20 +0000

I do agree with your verdict, although I would have gone into the semantics of it all; humans cannot be an invasive species as it is a man-made notion. And, seeing how we cannot be invasive as we move about ourselves, I wonder if perhaps our “invasiveness” isn’t more a symptom of a species exploring its own potential in terms of population growth; we’re simply too well adapted to the world. So, in a way, we’re not invasive, we’re just highly successful. Although I should hasten to add that population growth cannot resume forever; at one point or another the trend will reverse, and the population stabilise. It is very interesting to ponder what that level is, but as it has little to do with the topic, from which I have already digressed, I shall refrain.