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]

Also you could say that Humans as intelligent, sapient, and reasoning beings realize that the destruction of certain animal life would adversely affect our own species.

Ex. Sonar beaching and killing off whales, since there are no whales to eat a certain kind of fish they over-run the ocean destroying all the other fish-life. If all fish-life was killed off that would adversely affect those societies that rely mainly on seafood for their nourishment.

So what we're in fact doing is protecting our own interests, which is what the strong species do so they will continue to survive (OMG natural selection).

I can't think of one instance where the destruction of any species would benefit mankind except for maybe the destruction of certain viruses like smallpox, HIV, etc. but even then that lowers the immune system of humans and if a similar virus ever evolves we would be wiped out.

So in conclusion, humans save species because it's in our best interest to survive (OMG natural selection)!