[ConsistentLibertarian]

This is a stunning confusion. First, who disagrees with the claim that a species that is ill equipped to deal will suffer or change? Are you suggesting that if murder is wrong, that claim is false? You'd _have_ to be making that inference if you think that the truth of the claim entails that murder is not wrong. This is a monster howler. You've got to at least get straight on the difference between saying "if X, then Y _will_ happen" and "If X, the Y _should_ happen". This is an important point for your own mental hygiene. Get it, grok it, repent.

[Alberta's Child]

You missed the point of my original question. Under a system in which evolutionary processes drive the development of a species (outside of all external influences), what is the rationale for saying that any process of "natural selection" should be prevented? My point is that human actions must be governed by moral norms that exist outside any kind of natural "process." Darwinism breaks down because of its inability to explain something very basic that is necessary for the survival of the human race (but not necessary for the survival of any other species) -- the concepts of "right" and "wrong" in an abstract sense.

It should be noted that this is precisely what separates humans from any other animal. The protection of endangered species is a perfect case in point -- no animal would ever go out of its way to ensure the survival of another species simply for the sake of doing so.