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.

[pebkac]

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.

If a species becomes endangered due to natural reasons, then yes that is survival of the fittest.

If mankind takes actions that needlessly kills said species off, that's another thing entirely.

[Hartmann]

If a species becomes endangered due to natural reasons, then yes that is survival of the fittest.

If mankind takes actions that needlessly kills said species off, that's another thing entirely.

So the tsunami in Indonesia and the earthquake in Pakistan were both natural, yet we aided in the effort to save lives. Did we interfere with evolution?

[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.

[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)!

[Erik B.]

The dinosaurs being wiped out isn't really "evolution" is it? It's a natural disaster that eradicated many species of animals. They didn't evolve into anything. They just died, and not as a result of being inferior to another species.

But then, I'm no scientist, and I don't really care. My argument probably makes no sense.

[Jyan]

What you're talking is natural selection, not evolution.

Andd as was said earlier, if it's a result of man, it's not natural.

[Hartmann]

What you're talking is natural selection, not evolution.

Andd as was said earlier, if it's a result of man, it's not natural.

Is natural selection not part of evolution?

And how is human involvement not "natural"? Are we not natural creatures?

I am not trying to be rude to anyone so don't take my questions that way, I just want as much info out there as possible.

[chook]

Survival of the fittest does not fit into what evolution is. Evolution is just the changes brought upon stresses in a population, and the fittest do not always procreate.

[Hartmann]

Survival of the fittest does not fit into what evolution is. Evolution is just the changes brought upon stresses in a population, and the fittest do not always procreate.

So they weren't very fit now were they

[dauss]

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.

Like this? Maybe some people have too much time on their hands.