> On Aug 28, 2:06 am, Brian VanPelt earthlink.net> wrote:

>> Is it possible that compassion. or love, is something that has evolved
>> over time? If Darwin was correct, and if it is possible that
>> compassion/love were to have evolved, then why would it be in our best
>> interest to have compassion/love?

> He pointed out that in terms of the naive "survivor of the
> fittest" model, there is no value in a dog taking care of a cat. Cats
> and dogs are not natural friends, and may even have a few antagonistic
> instincts. However, the dog took care of the kittens and showed
> extreme affection for it. He even claimed that the dog continue to
> show affection for the kittens well into adulthood.
> I have heard the argument that the dog didn't really show
> compassion. She merely thought the kittens were her puppies. However,
> that is pretty silly. It gives her too much credit for way too much
> intelligence. She didn't know the difference between kittens and
> puppies.

>
>Lorentz yahoo.com wrote:

>> On Aug 28, 2:06 am, Brian VanPelt earthlink.net> wrote:

>>> Is it possible that compassion. or love, is something that has evolved
>>> over time? ...

> On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 14:10:45 -0400 (EDT), "John W Edser"
> ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
> Would an ant care for an elephant? Or is that just too silly to
> comprehend?
>
> What, exactly, is possible or impossible from an evolutionary
> standpoint? Or is this question even possible to try to answer? How
> stupid of a question is it?