Is "survival of the fittest" a misnomer?
Wouldn't "death of the unfittest" be more accurate?
>>8192677
pic definitely related
each statement implies the other no?
>>8192688
Maybe I'm just dumb, but "the fittest" seems to imply the most fit, i.e. those that are the pinnacle of being "fit," while "the unfittest" implies those that are the least fit.
Survival of the most fit implies that those that are of middling "fit" die as well as those that are least "fit," while death of the unfittest implies that only the "least fit" die while middling "fit" groups manage to survive along with the most "fit" groups.
>>8192692
Roughly it means you put a line in the population and keep the top half, but in reality it's much messier than that idealization anyway.
Death of the unfortunate.
There, fixed.
>>8192695
I prefer "Death of the ones who died."
I figure that's just broadly specific enough to cover the issue at hand.
>>8192677
Pays to be a winner
>>8192692
well, death of the unfittest can be taken to mean the least fit organism in the world, so only that one organism should die..
don't think of it as a gradient from unfit to fit. it's not "i'm fit, and therefore i survive", it's "i survive, and therefore i am fit"
so if we take the definition of fit to mean "ability to survive", you're left with just 2 distinct groups, the fit and the unfit; the living and the dead
>>8192677
You are using humanistic terms. It simply means "best fit for the environment". A tortoise might look slow and stupid to a human but it evolved well enough in it's surrounding environment to "fit" it. A bacteria is more fit than a human being is on this planet for another example.
>>8192698
/thread
They mean the same thing. Stop trying to create your own theory
it's just a use of language don't think too much about it
