A theory to ponder Options

[Hartmann]

A lot of people believe in evolution and the theory that the strong survive. Yet we see groups that actively trying to save animals or people.

My questions is then, if evolution occurs on such a grand scale and people are firm believers in it, why do they not let it takes its course? If a village is completely destroyed by a fire, wouldn't that be considered evolution? I mean, the dinosaurs were killed by an asteroid and we've called that evolution.

I am not saying that suffering should be allowed, but my theory is that by saving people, animals, plants, etc. we are altering evolution (if it occurs).

Iwas just thinking about this this morning and I'm interested to hear what others have to say.

[Seeker]

What you're talking about is in fact itself evolution.

Ex.

Non-intelligent, non-sapient beings (animals) all fighting to survive and the animals with the best adaptations wins ------> Intelligent, sapient, reasoning creatures (humans) arrive on the scene ------> Intelligent, sapient, reasoning beings have a certain degree of control over reality and their world and can alter it how they see fit (that in itself is evolution).

So what I'm trying to say is that we're just in another stage of evolution, one where mother nature saw fit to allow one species control over it to see what happens. What could happen? We could destroy every living creature on Earth (way worse than a tusnami or earthquake and you could call this de-evolution), or we could conserve the biodiversity and keep it how it is, or we could create new lifeforms with genetic engineering. Who knows... it's part of evolution.