I'm not trying to be callous or anything like that, but this article got me thinking:

Disease, climate change and habitat loss are threatening one-third of the world's fragile species of frogs, toads, newts and salamanders, according to the first global assessment of amphibians.

The results of the survey, published today in the journal Science, show that 1,856 of the known 5,743 species are "globally threatened'' in their forest, stream or underground homes.

Under evolution, a theory I do not accept, would not the extinction of species be a natural occurring phenomenon? It would seem that when a species 'evolves' into a new species, the old species dying out would count as extinction. Another extinction mechanism would be when a species fails to make the 'transition' necessary to avoid annihilation precipitated by climate, predator or another environmental change.

I'm not arguing that humans have no environmental responsibilities; I'm just pointing out that intentionally preserving species that are endangered seems counterintuitive to pure evolutionary theory. Might artificially preserving these amphibians actually deny their opportunity to advance along the evolutionary chain?

If you think my thoughts are incorrect, feel free to add a comment. (If you want to discuss evolution vs. creation, don't bother commenting here. Instead, go find a newsgroup on the topic - they are very easy to find…just look for the flames.)