but I think this was the point of the article. Losing highly-adapted, very fragile species to a more robust invader is a loss of biodiversity. But that holds b

but I think this was the point of the article. Losing highly-adapted, very fragile species to a more robust invader is a loss of biodiversity. But that holds biodiversity as a higher virtue than survivability and adaptability. Is that justified? This is the thing: if species A out-performs species B in a given ecosystem niche, and species B becomes extinct as a result, that's how nature works. That's evolution. There's nothing "wrong" or "bad" about that. Survival of the fittest. If humans caused species A to be there, that's irrelevant. It doesn't make Species A's survival (or species B's extinction) "unnatural" or "wrong". We were just a transport mechanism, like any other "natural" transport mechanism. Surely evolution and survival of the fittest overrules biodiversity?