but when the number of individuals gets large enough, resources will be depleted, slowing the growth rate.
Yellowstone is a decent example of this. Deer were overgrazing after the extinction of wolves and it eventually depleted much of the area's resources.
Scientists estimate that the total number of species on Earth could range from about 3.6 million up to 117.7 million, with 13 to 20 million being the most frequently cited range (Hammond, 1995; Cracraft, 2002).
Does this figure include micro organisms, would it even be possible to make a figure with micro organisms or do they evolve too rapidly.
Small populations are more susceptible to the forces of genetic drift. Large populations, on the other hand, are buffered against the effects of chance. If one individual of a population of 10 individuals happens to die at a young age before it leaves any offspring to the next generation, all of its genes—1/10 of the population’s gene pool—will be suddenly lost. In a population of 100, that’s only 1 percent of the overall gene pool; therefore, it is much less impactful on the population’s genetic structure.
With this in mind would it be accurate to say that species on island evolve faster than mainland species or are the effects of genetic drift not substantial enough?
Figure 2.2.22.2.2\PageIndex{2}: The (a) African fish eagle is similar in appearance to the (b) bald eagle, but the two birds are members of different species. (credit a: modification of work by Nigel Wedge; credit b: modification of work by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service)
I think it's interesting that these two species convergently evolved camouflage on only their head despite these continents being apart for over 500 million years
Theory then leads to expectations, which in turn lead to experiments. Commonly, experiments aren’t undertaken until there is some theory to be tested and understood
Sounds like Deductive reasoning is most common in this field