Please help guys!! Most biology textbooks describe that predators and prey exist in a balance. This "balance of nature" hypothesis has been criticized by some scientists because it suggests a relationship between predators and prey that is good and necessary. Opponents of this hypothesis propose the following questions:

Why is death by predators more natural or "right" than death by starvation?

How does one determine when an ecosystem is in "balance"?

Do predators really kill only the old and sick prey? What evidence is there for this statement?

- What is your opinion of the balance of nature hypothesis?

- Would the deer on the island be better off, worse off, or about the same without the wolves? Defend your position.

Make sure you answer both questions and explain your opinion

Hey mate here's your answer ⤵️

Why is death by predators more natural or "right" than death by starvation?

Death by predators is the preferred method over death by starvation. When a population is starving, the members of that population will become malnourished and weak. ... However once the predator population is too large it will cause the prey population to fall, and as a result, the prey population will also fall.

How does one determine when an ecosystem is in "balance"?

An ecosystem is said to be balanced when gases are in their correct proportions, when There is enough preys for the amount of predators and generally there should be fewer large organisms than there are small ones. ... All species are important and help keep the ecosystem balanced.

Do predators really kill only the old and sick prey? What evidence is there for this statement?

What studies that do exist, clearly show that large predators kill their prey/food depending upon several factors, none of which are the result of a predator recognizing they have a sick animal on their hands. ...

- What is your opinion of the balance of nature hypothesis?

Most biology textbooks describe that predators and prey exist in a balance. This "balance of nature" hypothesis has been criticized by some scientists because it suggests a relationship between predators and prey that is good and necessary.

- Would the deer on the island be better off, worse off, or about the same without the wolves? Defend your position.

The deer on the island are better off with the wolf population. The wolves did not necessarily cause a long term decrease in the population, but there presence did stop the starvation of the deer on the island.

Hope it was helpfulll

i think that the best answer would be c.

tell me if im wrong : )

they deliver oxygen to the blood