Evolution is not "survival of the fittest". There is no such thing as "fittest" within shifting sets of circumstances. The key concept is really reproductive fitness: who reproduces, when, how often, how quickly, how many offspring survive, etc.
From the perspective of an organism, they cannot control circumstances, even humans, so any hubristic notion that "my genes MUST survive" is meaningless. No genes must survive. Nothing must survive. There is no "goal" to the Law of Evolution; only process. The process depends upon differential net reproductive success, not "toughness", "rugged assholism", but primarily upon mere dumb luck and blind chance.
Death comes to us all. Besides, given the structure of human populations, might as well call it Survival of the Niggest. Comes closer to reality.
>>70670306
The "best evolver" is the one who best adapts to his surroundings.
Reproduction comes second to adapting to your environment.
"the fittest" literally means one who fits the best. It doesn't mean /fit/, you mongloid.
>>70670306
This thing you call "environment" is in constant flux; organisms do not "adapt" over their lifetimes in genetic terms. They either reproduce or they don't, and offspring survive or they don't. There is no best or worst. And random chance happens to us all.
There is also no "alpha human". While Joe Alpha is busy thumping his chest the REALLY smart males are dragging Sally behind every bush they can find. POOF goes another \pol\ tard sociobiology meme
>>70670306
>There is no such thing as "fittest" within shifting sets of circumstances
Yes there is, the fittest are the ones who can survive in whatever set of circumstances it is in.
> The key concept is really reproductive fitness: who reproduces, when, how often, how quickly, how many offspring survive, etc.
>how many offspring survive
You literally btfo of your own psuedo-intellectual rant
The way you assume you know everything about a complex subject like evolution, despite an obvious lack or research or critical thinking, leads me to believe that you are probably too young to be posting on this board. Get out.
>>70670306
Its survival of the fittest, but the definition in biology is not your everyday life definition of being "fit" as a human person. There is nothing new about what you said.
If a biologist talks about "survival of the fittest" all they mean is "those who are still around are the ones that are born because they parents were able to gith birth to them."
>>70670822
Hi Adolf. Then where are you today tuffy?
>>70671101
No. You BTFO, by modern biology and genetics. Your genes don't give a flying fuck about your little pecker. They either transmit and recombine with she-bitch's into new forms or they don't. You're not special, pumpkin.
>>70670306
Not a tin foil hat wearer. But im ex navy. I have my own theory on those dudes.
I think they were sepcial forces and wanted to be captured. No gun boat in their right mind, let alone an american one would surrender to a couple of mudslimes. I think they wanted to be captured, as in they were on a mission.
I dont give a fuck what the media says. We used to do the same shit for other reasons.
>>70671297
>OP is a Gen Z babby roleplaying as a boomer
how cute.
Can you point me to anything I said that even remotely sounded like I thought was special?
>>70670615
Not really. Look at rabbits. They're literally just feed for other animals. They only still exist because they breed like dindus.
>>70673315
r-selection
their mode of survival is quickly reproduce
the being "best adapted" part is where they can eat the largest variety of food in their habitat
