Question 041118a: What is "survival of the fittest"?
Answer 041118a: "survival of the fittest" means that from all offspring
in a population the one with the best adaption to the environment
survives. "Survival of the fittest" is the selection machanism in
"Mutation and
Selection", a central dogma in evolution theory. Without selection, no
evolution.
Can "survival of the fittest" be used as an argument for evolution? No.
Here is the detailed answer:
Is it really "the fittest" that survives? Is it not that the "unfit"
dies? No, this is not semantics. This is a very important difference.
Let me walk you through this:
If you have two rabbits, the one that runs slower will be eaten by the
wolf. This rabbit might run slower than his fellow, because he has a
disease, or his legs do not move correctly. Thus being eaten by the
wolf before it can produce offspring ensures that his weaker genes do
not spread to the next generation. Now, a baby rabbit that has the
potential
to be a very fast runner also has the risk to be eaten by a wolf. If
this
rabbit would become an adult, he would be the fittest and would survive
and produce offspring. But as a baby rabbit, he is no different from
his
weaker sibblings.
"Survival of the fittest" is determined by survival at the age of
fertility, but if he really survives is often determined during the
time before becoming fertile.
Let me use another example. A salmon lays 4000 eggs. On average only
two will survive and become adult salmon which will lay eggs or produce
sperm. Why should out just the two eggs who produce the fittest adults
survive? Isn't it more that by chance two eggs out of 4000 grow and
become
adult salmon? The unfit ones (with smaller fins and weaker noses) will
surely die on the way. But with them, the potentially fastest swimmers
will
die, too. Thus selection does not select the fittest for survival and
evolution to higher species.
Rather, death of the unfit ensures the constant strong viability of the
population. Weaker ones will be sorted out. Thus survival of the
fittest is not a mechanism for evolution.
Or, as Stephen J. Gould wrote: “The essence of Darwinism lies in
a single phrase: natural selection is the creative force of
evolutionary change. No one denies that selection will play a
negative role in eliminating the unfit. Darwinian theories
require that it create the fit as well” (1977b, p. 28).
But especially the last requirement " Darwinian theories require that
it create the fit as well", is exactly what Darwin's theory cannot do.
Thus, there is only one conclusion, one that is nicely summarized by
the Swedish biologist Søren Løvtrup:
"After this step-wise elimination,
only one possibility remains: the Darwinian theory of natural
selection, whether or not coupled with Mendelism, is false. I
have already shown that the arguments advanced by the early champions
were not very compelling, and that there are now considerable numbers
of empirical facts which do not fit with the theory. Hence, to
all intents and purposes the theory has been falsified, so why has it
not been abandoned? I think the answer is that current
evolutionists follow Darwin’s example—they refuse to accept falsifying
evidence."
(answer last modified Jan 11, 2005)
back to Main page