survival theory

By admin, October 15, 2009 5:04 pm

Does the Evolution Theory cliche =The survival of the fittest .does it have a reallistic meaning?

It the hypothesis of evolution was true;Then why some of the weakest people and or passive people pass on they genetics.
And if evolution seeks to ameliorate why are still people dying ? After the the tousands of years of existance there is no surval .Still people die= hence survival of the fistest must be a misnomer.
Is what hey teach us in school about that chimeric?

Granted “survival of the fittest” is a poor way to characterize natural selection. For one reason it’s a bit circular in logic. It is also important to point out that what natural selection maximizes (optimizes really) is numbers of babies, not survival of the individual. Genes that lead to traits in individuals that cause them to have more offspring than individuals without those genes are more common in the next generation (=evolution). The logic of this, as you can see, is unassailable. So while being able to survive means you can live to have more children, it’s really about having the children, not survival per se.

As to your other point (about individuals dying), as I said the individual doesn’t matter for evolution, only how many offspring are produced (including their quality and when they are produced). So there is no inherent benefit to living longer unless it allows you to produce more offspring. In fact evolutionary theory has explained why we age and it is something of an inevitable fact of life unfortunately. Different organisms have different average longevities that have evolved based on that particular species’ schedule of reproduction and mortality, but all organisms (sexual organisms) will inevitably age and die. The explanation for the evolution of ageing is a very elegant one and not hard to understand, but I won’t go into it here. If you search the web using the terms “evolution senescence” you should find it if you are interested.

Hardangerbasecamp survival theory