I suppose it would depend on the animal. I'm pretty sure the world's last squirrel would be fine with it- more nuts for him. But yeah, there are especially social animals that need at least one pack/pod/murder/congregation.
Without enough biodiversity there might not be any nuts.
While one species may die off another may be evolving to fit the new ecosystem. Scientists are finding new species still. Small gets bigger or tougher or more disguised, etc, etc.
It’s a speed issue. Modern culture likely precludes healthy co-evolution.
Sure to a point but, earthquakes, volcanoes , the position of earth changing on it’s axis, the moon coming closer or farther, distance from the sun, solar flares and the odd large meteor all affect life and deaths. We are part of a volatile system, not the whole.
Indeed. And this is key here - we HUMANS ARE HIGHLY ANTI-EVOLUTIONARY as a species… 
Yep.
And “we humans” want to control evolution to our own design.
Of course, evolution only works when you try to resist it.
So what?
Why not be anti-evolutionary? Whatever anti-evolutionary means.
Is medicine anti-evolutionary?
Is keeping cats and dogs, as pets, anti-evolutionary?
Houseplants? Indoor plumbing? The internet?
What are we talking about here?
Right, but we affect things pretty dramatically, because we’re pretty powerful. We’re like a volcano with a mind. So, since we are pretty good at screwing things up, we are also capable of fixing things. That’s the theory anyway - I’m both somewhat hopeful and at the same time very skeptical that we are able to know what to do.
Speaking for myself only, we’re talking about whether or not we have the capacity to recognize what a healthy ecosystem looks like and the ability to do something positive in that regard - and if “playing God” is a good or bad thing. I’m not sure what Skakos and others mean by “anti-evolutionary” but the biological/physical world we inhabit has co-evolved over millions of years, despite whatever cataclysmic events have occurred. The earth is like a living body in a way. We being part of that body, we recognize that killing off the things that hurt or annoy us (wolves, mosquitoes, whatever) is short-sighted. We’ve gone so far with that project that we’re starting to think about “the environment” for our own sake, let alone for the sake of other species.
Obviously, the desires of humans don’t necessarily align with the good of other species. Medicine, for instance. Indoor plumbing. So we make choices - we weigh things.
Yes, all these things are “anti-evolutionary”.
What does this mean for you?
How are they anti evolutionary?
I haven’t read any of the replies, so this may have already been said. Human beings and their foolish ideas are part of the environment of those owls. So we cannot be against evolution. Evolution also happens through us and in us. If we save the panda from extinction due to its “cuddlability”, that too is evolution. If we hunt the tiger to extinction due to the danger it represents to human life and the demand for its “beautiful” skin, that too is evolution. The folly is in thinking we can ever transcend evolution, ever conquer nature. As I wrote last year:
“It’s necessary to affirm eternal return because the only way to assign binding limits to modernity’s conquest of nature is, paradoxically, to will its eternal return. After all, anything less than its absolute affirmation would be a saying Nay against it, and thereby itself a call to conquer nature: for modernity’s conquest of nature arises ‘naturally’ from the nature of human herd animals. Indeed, modernity’s conquest of nature is essentially the conquest of the nature of nature, which is conquest… A ‘war to end all wars’!” (https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/human_superhuman/conversations/messages/537)