Cross Breeds

If evolution is just change, then why do humans care so much about animals going extinct?

I mean, I recently posted a question about evolution and how once race amongst the species must be superior. Many people responded that it is a false assumption. Ok then. If it is a false assumption then why do humans try to perserve animals that are going extinct? Isn't it part of the change in evolution? Why do people who beleive in evolution care about other animals going extinct or not? I don't want to kill off animals, but I don't see the consistancy in thinking. I am wanting to know other peoples opinion. I am a Christian and I do beleive in creation. So, if you want to answer just to bash my belief or my religion don't waste your time. I think it is childish to do such things for people trying to get information. But if man is part of the natural selection and we are inadvertently wiping some species out. Then that too should be part of evolution? It seems mans nature is destruction, we don't live at peace with anything. There has always been wars, destroying of forests, killing of animal, etc... Humans at our point have no natural predator except ourselves. I am not trying to be difficult, I just want to understand clearly.

Public Comments

1. I think it's because the extinction of certain animals is not through natural selection, but through artificial means -- the destruction of their natural habitat by humans.
2. Evolution is a myth like Global Warming and second-hand smoke. Anyway, they always say that animals are going extinct. Well if evolution has any grain of truth, shouldn't new animals be discovered?
3. Absolutely, as Laura said. Extinctions caused by mankind is not natural selection. It is these extinctions that animal rights campaigners seek to prevent. And nighthawk... I er, suggest you do your homework. Evolution is a myth? Species changing and growing to suit their environment is a myth? So, it's just a bunch of flukes then that polar bears have warm fluffy coats, that penguins have blubber, that otters have flippers etc. Fossilised records collected over a hundred years - that was all a big government conspiracy was it? Findings of remnants of evolutionary throw-away parts in animals living today - eg, leg bones in whales, toe bones in horses, other vestigial organs, even in humans, I think constitutes a pretty strong case for evolution. And second-hand smoke? A myth? Tell yourself that all you like. So carbon monoxide and other harmful chemicals that are released from the ends of cigarettes don't get inhaled by anybody else? You're a fruitcake! And don't get me started on global warming... too much to go into on this thread. I'm guessing you're just joking though, Nighthawk, right? I don't think anyone can be that ignorant.
4. Once its gone you can't get it back. A lot has do with people actually giving a fk whether to keep an animal abundent or not. Same goes with the human animal, when a country wages war the other countries usually do nothing because they don't give a fuck whether the country lives or dies. If its a country with hot blondes then the whole world jumps in to protect. Every country needs a bunch of hot blondes to keep things smooth.
5. If you don't believe in evolution, then your asking this question primarily to spark an arguement. So it wouldn't help to explain to you that the concept of evolution is a natural process spanning centuries in which animals that survive breed and pass on the genes that helped them survive to the next generation, while other animals that fail to survive, also fail to breed. Extinction on the other hand is a process by which human created pollution, development, and poor land management makes it impossible for any of a type of animal to survive, genetics or no genetics. Instead I'll just say that god didn't like those animals, so he sent his people down with bulldowsers to build a church on their natural habitat.
6. What worries scientists and environmentalists is the extinct of birds animals etc not due to evolution or changes or modifications of those birds and animals to a much better or robust birds and animals under the same series but complete extinction.SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST is a good theory. We know that certain speceis could not survive the bing bang. In such evolutions it is but natural some speceis got extinct. But todays situation is that MAN is killing many speceis wantonly and by such immature action once the entire speceis are extinct then there is no evolution taking place but only destruction. Nature has its own CHECK and BALANCE system. WE know that many insects which destroy crops are eaten by small birds. By killing the small birds the menace of insects became so big that once again these small birds have to be nurtured to improve their population. SAme way vultures are vanishing from the scene because of certain chemicals in the carcases of cows and bulls killed for their skin etc. Man made nuclear bombs and experiments can cause untold sufferings and extinction of even human specis from the univers. We have heard(not seen)about CHERNOBYL accident in USSR .Can you say why worry about extinction
7. Because humans are the one species that has the ability to take responsibilities for its own actions. Because not *everything* is about evolution ... only biology. We have intelligence, and conscience, and the ability to rise *above* evolution. So when we are *causing* the extinction of another species, we have the moral responsibility to question that action. Yes, human presence is part of the natural environment of other species. But to the extent that humans can change that effect, make it less destructive, that is something humans can do. Evolution tells us where we *came* from ... but it doesn't tell us how we should *act* as humans. That, by the way, is where you come in, jmaikpe. This is where faith comes in, with issues of morality and responsibility. This is where Genesis speaks loudly ... the issue responsible "dominion" over other creatures. Evolution is no guide there! --- Postscript to dawngirl --- No evolutionist thinks or says that *all* extinctions are caused by humans. Evolutionists are extremely aware of the great mass extinctions long before we got here, but even moreso the basic process by which *most* species that have ever lived have gone extinct naturally. But in those modern cases where humans *are* causing extinctions ... in some cases mass extinctions (as in the wiping out of entire habitats) ... human beings have a responsibility to reconsider our actions. Not because of evolution, but because it's the right thing to do. "Survival of the fittest" (which is an extreme oversimplification of the theory of evolution) is about competition between individuals *within* a species ... it is not about warfare *between* species. Human beings are not in "competition" with spotted owls and muriqui monkeys in the amazon. Burning down rain-forests to make cattle farms for McDonalds is not an act of survival ... it's an act of reckless stupidity.
8. First, i want to say that i am also a creationist, and i think it is a good thing that we do our best to understand the theory of evolution and how it affects the world around us. (i am very interested in this area of science) i would also like to comment on ericka's statement that extinction is caused by humans and our pollution/development. if that is true, then how would evolutionists explain the numerous extinctions that took place in the fossil record, like near the boundary between the cretacous and paleogene layers or between the paleozoic and the mesozoic, or anywhere else in the fossil record? accourding to evolution, these would be millions of years before humans or any "human ancestor" was on the earth. i also think that if you hold to evolution, then you shouldn't be fighting so hard to save species that are going extinct. a main component of evolution is survival of the fittest, if humans are just animals like all the rest, then our pollution and invasion of rain forests are just like any other species that are overcoming competition.
9. I would agree with you that humans causing extinction can sometimes be defined as natural selection. However, our nervous systems have allowed us to have a different impact on the world around us. We are able to make decisions to avoid the extinction of other animals and have the capacity to take action a lot of the time. Hope this helps. and as a side note "survival of the fittest" was retracted by Darwin when he saw that his cousin Galton was using it promote societal improvement. This is not what Darwin meant. Think of natural selection as selecting against traits, characteristics, or behaviors that are harmful to the organism's ability to survive long enough to reproduce. Survival of the fittest just sounds like constant improvement.