Why aren't there any monopolies in evolution?

Question

It seems to me that if natural selection took place over a long period of time, eventually the fittest species would win over all the others and have a monopoly over their genus and even the world as humans do. Even if such a monopoly disrupted the ecosystem and reduced the ability of that species to survive, that monopoly would exist for at least a while. Yet this doesn't seem to be the case. Why not?

Answer 1

There are lots of examples of monopolies in various locations on earth.   Polar bears are dominant in the arctic.   Pine triees in some regions, spruce or fir in others.   Sage brush in semi-arid regions.    

Answer 2

It's hard to maintain a monopoly when geographic distance causes groups to evolve apart from each other (and thus into direct competition with each other the next time they meet).

Answer 3

I've heard that before the dinosaurs went extinct, the triceratops was out in absurd numbers. That might be considered a monopoly. A monopoly in their niche. I don't buy the argument that they caused an ecological collapse, though.

The ecological niche for humans is everywhere, and spreading. We've even had people on the Moon briefly. And we eat anything - now including petroleum based synthetic foods.    So as humans have become dominant, it's a true monopoly.  Hopefully, we're smart enough to see that it's not good for us.

Answer 4

Environments change.  They may get perfectly adapted to their environment now, but it will change and they will lose to another species.

Humans defeat this by altering our behavior to adapt to environmental changes, ex. wearing animal fur.  We are the first to take behavioral changes to this level.

Although very little can stop a severe natural disaster, a supervolcano, meteor, ect.

Answer 5

the geographic inconstancy only allows a specie to dominate delimited territory thus any enviromental variation fits to different pattern.