Survival of the Fittest?

[Gravity]

Do you agree with it? Since nature really plays on that level.

[TrippinBTM]

I do in part. The idea that all life is a struggle isn't right, i'm not struggling now, the trees outside aren't struggling, and the bugs aren't either; we're all mostly just living. The struggles are brief, mostly life is pretty chill.

But yeah, that's when the selection really occurs, during the struggle. Be it a rabbit struggling to escape the fox, or the fox struggling t catch the rabbit, or the rooster struggling to impress the hen (sexual selection), only the fastest rabbits, fastest foxes, and sexiest roosters will make the cut. The rest die or don't get to breed.

[StonerBill]

i dont think its survival of the fittest its just survival of those who can survive. you dont have to be particularly the best of your species. the word 'fittest' has implications that divert the true nature of nature.

since species can only breed within themselves, the individuals in a species who survive for whatever reason are the ones who the species will end up being defined by.

one example that sorta shows another angle of natural selection is where a certain trait becomes a negative if too many of a species have it.

sociopaths have a unique ability overall to exert control and power over other people. so according to survival of the fittest, these people should be the ones to pass on their genes. however sociopaths can only function optimally in an environment where everyone else is not a sociopath. and so there is a self limiting factor.

its all about how things fit into their environment uniquely.

it could be said that this is merely the case whereby what trait defines the fittness is constantly changing. and this is indeed the case but i think the fact that what is fit can change depending on the individual moment means that what is fitter in one situation isnt fit in the other, and with situations continuously changing, you cant give a certain organism an inherent 'fit' status. theyre merely surviving at that moment or not surviving.

so it is those moments of 'struggle' that give a moment where an organism might NOT survive.

it just happens that overall the fittest have an advantage but that is not teh defining nature of nature, imo, but the momentary continuation of surviving, by whatever means

[Hikaru Zero]

I'm not sure what you mean by "do you agree with it?"

Do I acknowledge it as the most natural state? Yes.
Do I think it is the most efficient and most beneficial state? No.

[Meagain]

The statement "the fittest survive" is the same as saying that whomever survives is the fittest.

They aren't the fittest until they survive, so it has no meaning and can't be used to predict anything.

[spooner]

survival of the most adapted for their niche.

[Hikaru Zero]

The statement "the fittest survive" is the same as saying that whomever survives is the fittest.

They aren't the fittest until they survive, so it has no meaning and can't be used to predict anything.

It can be used to predict probabilities. =)

[TrippinBTM]

The statement "the fittest survive" is the same as saying that whomever survives is the fittest.

They aren't the fittest until they survive, so it has no meaning and can't be used to predict anything.
Not so. The fittest survive statistically more often than the less fit. Of course, there are a range of different aspects of an organism that can be selected for simultaneously, so it's pretty complex. But it's simple logic. Faster rabbits will evade predators better (statistically, and that doesn't rule out other deaths like falling rocks or illness), and will thus survive more to breed more.

So it's true that at any given time, "unfit" individuals may survive while "fit" ones don't. But in the long run, statistically, the fit will outsurvive the less fit.

[Iconoclast]

The statement "the fittest survive" is the same as saying that whomever survives is the fittest.

They aren't the fittest until they survive, so it has no meaning and can't be used to predict anything.Exactly. It might be true, but it's trivially true.

[Iconoclast]

And it should be pointed out that this phrase has nothing to do with evolution or Biology. It was coined by Herbert Spencer and is meant to be applied to Sociology. By "the fittest", he intended "the fittest society" not the fittest individual.

[Hikaru Zero]

And it should be pointed out that this phrase has nothing to do with evolution or Biology. It was coined by Herbert Spencer and is meant to be applied to Sociology. By "the fittest", he intended "the fittest society" not the fittest individual.

Errr, I thought Darwin was the one who first coined the term "natural selection" as survival of the fittest?

[StonerBill]

It can be used to predict probabilities. =)
thats just a risk assessment though. you cant predict what will happen so as far as fact is concerned, its not valid. as for assessing risks, probability is of course the only thing to rely on. as far as what does happen, anything really can happen so you cant scientifically say 'the fittest survive', though you can say 'the fittest are more likely to survive'

i think theyre pretty different things

[Occam]

What survives is what survives.

It wont come as a suprise that the species best suited to any particular enviroment.
Is most likely the one to survive.

This is where humanity crossed a line. We became, through reason, able to change the enviroment to maximise our survival chances.
Evolution for humans then became.
Not the same evolution that applies to ALL OTHER THINGS.

We evolved beyond darwinian evolution.

Occam

[StonerBill]

the principles are the same - there are simply different struggles.

human selection has of course become another form

[steffan]

some of you seem a bit confused and since i didnt see simple explanation i thought i would provide one.
if you read alot of egghead books you will find that what that refers too is natural selection, for instance if you put a bunch cats of various sizes in a forest with alot of heavy ground cover in time there would only be small cats becouse there the ones who can reach the food source, and therefore the most fit to survive under those conditions
and humans have not reached the end of evolution, the word was a bad choice, but perhaps necasary at the time, It sounds like it means get smarter, evolve to some higher plane of consousness or some such crap. It realy just means to change, and we are most certenly doing that. we are not near as proflific as we once were, we are taller with less muscle mass, and we are aging more slowly, to a point were even puberty seems to be pushed back. who knows what the future holds for us, most likely we will intervene on natural selection and alter ourselves. and once that begins on a wide scale we will most likely be almost unrecognizable in a relativly short while

[Iconoclast]

Errr, I thought Darwin was the one who first coined the term "natural selection" as survival of the fittest?No.

[themnax]

the fittest do indeed survive. the vested misconception however is to equate competitive strength with this fitness. the fittest arn't always the sharpest teeth, the strongest claws, but rather those SPECIES that can coexist in ways that mutualy sustain a complex web of species, and has little to do with the fortunes of individual members of any of them.

to equate fitness with strength in this context is one of those big lies that is so easy to get away with because the context itself isn't as simple as it is so romantic to pretend that it is. or rather isn't WHAT it is so romanticly simplistic to pretend that it is.

=^^=
.../\...

[Meagain]

Here's one side....

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/tautology.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA500.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/tautology.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survival_of_the_fittest

And here's another....

http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/09nsel06.htm
http://thirdofthemonth.typepad.com/thirdofthemonth/2005/07/index.html
http://www.jimloy.com/biology/natural.htm


Sort of.

[WhisperingWoods]

In this context, "fit" means ability to pass on genes. That includes any means by which the organism stays alive and able to reproduce, such as ability to aquire/consume food and avoid illness. The ones who do this most efficiently are the "fittest."

Yes, I agree that it exists in nature. Do I believe that it exists in modern society? Not in the same way as in nature.

[Iconoclast]

Survival of the fittest and natural selection are not the same thing. For example Island X has two inhabitants--the Bobs and the Neals. The Bobs are intelligent, strong, quick, and capable of manipulating their environment. The Neals are slow, unintelligent, incapable of creating technology, and continue to exist only because of a lack of natural predetors. Volcano Y exists at the center of Island X. On Tuesday, Volcano Y erupts sending a pyroclastic flow down the west side of the mountain and killing every Bob on Island X. The Neals watch this happen with dull interest and then eat some fruit. The fittest did not survive. Geographic location is luck. I could have used an asteroid collision just as easily. Survival does not necessarily signify fitness; it may simply signify luck.

Anyways, survival of the fittest was merely an excuse for one society to dominate or destroy another society. The dominating or destroying society is fitter than the society being destroyed or dominated.

[TrippinBTM]

Just because the social Darwinists corrupted the idea and used it to justify destroying "primitive" cultures and for doing eugenics, doesn't mean the principle doesn't hold true.

You're right, there is a lot of luck involved. But over the long run, those best adapted to their environment such that they can statistically survive more, WILL survive more. When the climate changes and it gets colder, the foxes with longer denser fur are going to have a higher survival rate than those with shorter, thinner fur (all else being equal, and yes I realize all else is not equal in real life).

[steffan]

Survival of the fittest and natural selection are not the same thing. For example Island X has two inhabitants--the Bobs and the Neals. The Bobs are intelligent, strong, quick, and capable of manipulating their environment. The Neals are slow, unintelligent, incapable of creating technology, and continue to exist only because of a lack of natural predetors. Volcano Y exists at the center of Island X. On Tuesday, Volcano Y erupts sending a pyroclastic flow down the west side of the mountain and killing every Bob on Island X. The Neals watch this happen with dull interest and then eat some fruit. The fittest did not survive. Geographic location is luck. I could have used an asteroid collision just as easily. Survival does not necessarily signify fitness; it may simply signify luck.

Anyways, survival of the fittest was merely an excuse for one society to dominate or destroy another society. The dominating or destroying society is fitter than the society being destroyed or dominated.
your missinterperting , it refers to the speices that takes advantage of a particular ecological nich. for there to be an acurate coralation you would need to put bobs and niels on the same island, feeding on the same things, living the same way. In the senario you descibe the bobs would hop in there boats and get the hell out of there, therfor being the most fit to survive.
Or sapose this, the bobs are smarter but cant build boats and the only difference between them and is the neils can fly, so now which is the most fit to survive when the shit hits the fan?
heres an even better senario, during the time the keltic sagas refer to as " the time of the giants" when the arms race between hunter and hunted has brought about monsterous beast. thee comes up a preditor with idealy suited to hunt these monsters, his advantage? a massive brain. now theres a problem with a big brain it, it takes ALOT of power to run, but thats ok because in this case because one kill will give you massive amounts of food. now these fellows do well for 250,000 years or more, spreading aross europe displacing preditors as they go. Then one winter it dosnt stop snowing, it dosnt stop for thousands of years. now with the prey dying off our fellows are forced to live hand to mouth, mindlessly foraging throuout the country side, there power hungry brains are no longer as nesasarry and the ones who require the most energy begin to die off, untill we are left with the most effiient of the species, the smaller ones with the smaller brains. and such is the surviel of the fittest

[Iconoclast]

your missinterperting
No...I'm not. Folks are saying that by mere survival, a species was necessarily the most fit. That's simply untrue unless the sole criterion for fitness is survival. If that is the sole criterion, then it's tautologous, unscientific, and meaningless.

for there to be an acurate coralation you would need to put bobs and niels on the same islandThey were on the same island.

feeding on the same things, living the same way.Why?

In the senario you descibe the bobs would hop in there boats and get the hell out of there, therfor being the most fit to survive.So if you completely change my example, then your right. Nice.

[steffan]

No...I'm not. Folks are saying that by mere survival, a species was necessarily the most fit. That's simply untrue unless the sole criterion for fitness is survival. If that is the sole criterion, then it's tautologous, unscientific, and meaningless.

They were on the same island.

Why?

So if you completely change my example, then your right. Nice. i had put them on the same island, the senerio i was talking about was the thing blowing up
and by "fit" they meen the most suited, not the healthiest,or the strongest, or the smartest, but simply the most fit to survive under a given circumstance. why use the word "fit" you may wonder? i did, and i can see there point, you see life must prevail, has prevailed, whatever form it takes, and too that end those that survive are the most fit

[steffan]

i had put them on the same island, the senerio i was talking about was the thing blowing up
and by "fit" they meen the most suited, not the healthiest,or the strongest, or the smartest, but simply the most fit to survive under a given circumstance. why use the word "fit" you may wonder? i did, and i can see there point, you see life must prevail, has prevailed, whatever form it takes, and too that end those that survive are the most fit oops i just reread, you did put them on the same island, but still there cercumstances where different, one lived in the shadow of the beast, and one lived a nice safe distance, and that was the point i was making

[TrippinBTM]

No...I'm not. Folks are saying that by mere survival, a species was necessarily the most fit. That's simply untrue unless the sole criterion for fitness is survival. If that is the sole criterion, then it's tautologous, unscientific, and meaningless.

I don't know that anyone said it was the sole criterion. But clearly survival rates are going to be important in evolution, because it directly affects reproductive rates (not always, in older animals...but then, those have probably already bred anyways).

oops i just reread, you did put them on the same island, but still there cercumstances where different, one lived in the shadow of the beast, and one lived a nice safe distance, and that was the point i was making
But the point HE'S making is that geographical location is another, seperate criterion that is going to figure highly in evolution...and he's right. Species aren't always evenly mixed together. And if we're just considering one species, obviously those closest to the volcano are going to die...even if the healthiest, fittest creatures live there.

[steffan]

geographical location is the main factor, and luck is not in natures arsenal. unless you can say it was lucky for the niels and the eco system that niels are afraid of smoking mountains. but it wasnt, the reason there afraid is there ancestors where and all those unfraid get barbaqued. maybe one day when the mountain has cooled and the plants and animals begin to return the niels who are not afraid will move to the side of the mountain, and they will look at the old niels and say man are they stupid, its so much better to live here, we are not that stupid so we must not be niels

[TrippinBTM]

There's no luck in nature? That's a laugh. Rock slides, avalanches, tornados, ice storms, etc can kill very randomly. Haven't you ever heard of a really smart person getting killed by a drunk driver? Shit happens, man, it's the same in nature.

[steffan]

that is nature, and the species on this planet survive these things, or perish

[steffan]

It is lucky an asteroid hasnt smacked this planet so hard it killed it i rekon

[spooner]

There is no creationism. There is no evolution. There are only the species that Chuck Norris has allowed to survive.

[pop_terror]

lol