[Auntie Dem]

Why can't man, with all his 21st Century wisdom, create anything from scratch that can 1) reproduce and 2) feed itself and 3) be smart enough to survive?

And why is it that those who profess most to believe in evolution are the ones fighting so hard against one of its major principles?

These left-wing nuts expend billions of other people's resources to protect species that cannot survive on their own, and thus thwart the "Survival of the Fittest" axiom of Darwin's Religion. They accuse man of wiping out species, but who is guilty of wiping out the millions or billions of species made extinct before man even existed?

Hypocrites.

[Ichneumon]

And why is it that those who profess most to believe in evolution are the ones fighting so hard against one of its major principles? These left-wing nuts expend billions of other people's resources to protect species that cannot survive on their own, and thus thwart the "Survival of the Fittest" axiom of Darwin's Religion. They accuse man of wiping out species, but who is guilty of wiping out the millions or billions of species made extinct before man even existed? Hypocrites.

There's nothing hypocritical about it. (Nor is it only "left-wing nuts" who are concerned about extinctions.) This misguided accusation comes up frequently, but I fail to understand why, because it makes no sense. Did all of you read it in the same pamphlet or something?

Here are a few of my prior posts on the subject, written in reply to similar accusations:

If weeding out is such a preferable occurance why on earth the hue and cry to "save " endangered species?

Because humanity's goals are different from nature's processes. Floods are natural too, but that doesn't mean *we* need to appreciate New Orleans being underwater. Plagues are natural, but we fight against them. Forest fires rejuvenate forests (in the long run), but we still don't like fires burning up our houses.

And:

Why? Why "Conserve" if its Natural instinct is making it die out....STUPID environmentalists!

1. Trees don't have "instincts".

2. It doesn't seem to have been "dying out" because it's still around and alive.

3. Even though extinctions occur naturally, that doesn't mean that man has to go along with it. Floods, famines, and plagues are in the natural order of things as well, but that doesn't mean we don't have our own opinions about their desirability when they affect us or things we take an interest in.

And:

In any case, what's your point here? Pandas were doing fine for millions of years until humans screwed up their successful lifestyle. Labeling pandas "unfit" because they don't do well in captivity or in a drastically reduced habitat is hardly a valid measure, and even if you had a point it still wouldn't support your original claim about some unnamed group(s) which allegedly feel that nature must take its course or something. It also ignores my point that letting the panda slide into extinction because of *manmade* destruction of its habitat and poaching of its members would hardly be "letting nature take its course", since we've *already* drastically interfered with nature's "course" for the panda by destroying its natural forests, and its resulting extinction would be an *artificial* result.

And:

This is Darwinism at its finest.

No, it isn't. Are you sure you understand "Darwinism"? Just because extinctions are part of evolution, that doesn't make excessive extinctions a "good" thing.

Your comment is like saying that since passage of the soul via death is a part of Christianity, then "famines are Christianity at its finest". Um, no.