You can't fairly compare the evolution of weapons to the evolution of animal defenses. The natural evolution of species DOES NOT keep pace with man-made technological advances. At least with early weapons, the animals stood a chance. When you are using a high powered rifle or elephant gun...the animal always loses (unless you don't know how to shoot). What you are saying is akin to "Ok guys, let's go fishing...I got 10 sticks of dynamite...gonna catch us some fish and blow everything out of the water no matter the collateral damage" (which is devastating if you read about it).
I mean if you are saying that the evolution of technology and weapons used in hunting falls under the category of "WHAT'S FAIR IS FAIR"...then shoot (no pun intended), let's get some drones with heat seeking missiles and go hunting...we can lay out some mines as well and maybe even use some chemical warfare to slow them down. It's evolution RIGHT? It's pretty NATURAL, RIGHT?
As far as your seal and shark analogy...these creatures have evolved in true NATURAL form with their weapons and defenses.
A girl flying half way around the world with her rifles, bullets and facebook app...to shoot down some lions, leopards, rhinos and elephants does not seem NATURAL to me.
I would rather promote the type of safari tour where people can travel to remote regions of the world and SHOOT with their CAMERAS and enjoy these majestic creatures while they are still alive, rather than a 3-second photo-op with a carcass. Hunting is not the only source of funds for the conservation of these animals. A no kill safari is not a cheap vacation which CAN and DOES bring in money to better maintain the conservation programs that exist.
On a side note- it is only the endangered species which I mainly take issue with. If she wants to hunt a wildebeest or water buffalo...go for it. I'm sure they would make for great steaks or burgers.
It's the animals that are already being poached for their beautiful hides, tusks and horns that are in need of help. And this help doesn't come at the end of a barrel.
I can see what you're saying in your last 3 paragraphs.
but the first two paragraphs are straw man argument on your part, and exaggerating what I was saying. see post below
Playing devil's advocate:
One might argue that if the theory of evolution holds 100% true, then anything man does is part of his evolution, so there for 100% 'natural'.
this is what i'm saying, how can you say man using guns to hunt is not natural?
I hate when anti-hunting people say things like, "why don't they go hunt a bear with their bare hands and make it a fair fight?"