Survival of the fittest

[Jonesboy]

Why is there survival of the fittest?
Is it because the fittest survive?

Or is it because the fittest means the most procreative?
Does that mean we survive if we procreate?

I heard, I heard, that ... it isn't the survival of the fittest. Mostly, the fittest die off, and what survives is everyone else. In which case, it's the survival of what's left.

[The Magic Pudding]

If they fail to reproduce at a greater rate than competitors they aren't the fittest.
It's not just a question of how many push ups chin ups they can do.
Animals on small islands often evolve to be smaller.

[xSilverPhinx]

Better put would be survival of those both able to survive (fittest) and able to reproduce (to pass on their genes).

Sometimes there's a logical disconnect between the two, a good example would be the male peacock, who inherited that tail that would negatively affect its ability to survive (escape predators, hide, etc.) but that was selected and passed on solely because it's what the females like.

[Tank]

Why is there survival of the fittest?
Is it because the fittest survive?

Or is it because the fittest means the most procreative?
Does that mean we survive if we procreate?

I heard, I heard, that ... it isn't the survival of the fittest. Mostly, the fittest die off, and what survives is everyone else. In which case, it's the survival of what's left.

This phrase is without doubt the most oft quoted yet most misunderstood in science. It is often taken to mean that the physically strongest survive at the expense of the weaker where 'fittest' is interpreted as 'strongest'. When coined the phrase meant that 'fittest' should be interpreted as 'best suited'. So for any given environment there will be those that are 'best suited', but best suited for what? Well the answer is 'best suited to successfully reproduce'. So 'survival of what's left' is true, but this residuum are actually the 'fittest' refered to in phrase 'Survival of the fittest' not those that die off.

[Too Few Lions]

I always thought evolution would suggest the long term survival of the best adapted to the environment and the most adaptable to change, not the survival of the fittest.

[Whitney]

Fittest in the evolutionary sense means the species that is most adapted to survive for the climate in which it lives.  That could mean that the weakling blue bellied umpa lumpa survives longer than the strong and brave red bellied umpa dupa....strength is not necessarily fitness when it comes to survival.

[Ecurb Noselrub]

strength is not necessarily fitness when it comes to survival.

Yep. Look at the big strong dinosaurs vs. the iddy-biddy mammals of the time.

[The Magic Pudding]

I don't no if it was ever meant to be a play on words, but if you were having trouble with the concept you could think of it as "fitting" the niche.

[Jonesboy]

If they fail to reproduce at a greater rate than competitors they aren't the fittest.
It's not just a question of how many push ups chin ups they can do.
Animals on small islands often evolve to be smaller.

Surely not. They could make themselves bigger, or live longer, and so win over the most procreative.

[Jonesboy]

Better put would be survival of those both able to survive (fittest) and able to reproduce (to pass on their genes).

Sometimes there's a logical disconnect between the two, a good example would be the male peacock, who inherited that tail that would negatively affect its ability to survive (escape predators, hide, etc.) but that was selected and passed on solely because it's what the females like.

You said
"Better put would be survival of those both able to survive (fittest) and able to reproduce (to pass on their genes)"

BUT - what sort of animal is not able to survive and procreate?

The peacock?- it's tail can be put away. Have you noticed? No. And that's how it survives.

[Jonesboy]

Why is there survival of the fittest?
Is it because the fittest survive?

Or is it because the fittest means the most procreative?
Does that mean we survive if we procreate?

I heard, I heard, that ... it isn't the survival of the fittest. Mostly, the fittest die off, and what survives is everyone else. In which case, it's the survival of what's left.

This phrase is without doubt the most oft quoted yet most misunderstood in science. It is often taken to mean that the physically strongest survive at the expense of the weaker where 'fittest' is interpreted as 'strongest'. When coined the phrase meant that 'fittest' should be interpreted as 'best suited'. So for any given environment there will be those that are 'best suited', but best suited for what? Well the answer is 'best suited to successfully reproduce'. So 'survival of what's left' is true, but this residuum are actually the 'fittest' refered to in phrase 'Survival of the fittest' not those that die off.

You said:
"So for any given environment there will be those that are 'best suited',"

An environment IS where an animal is best suited. in which case, it makes no difference whether they are more or less procreative.

[Jonesboy]

I always thought evolution would suggest the long term survival of the best adapted to the environment and the most adaptable to change, not the survival of the fittest.

The survival of the fiittest is a tautology.  Why?
Those that survive are called the fittest. There is no "of" about it.

There is no survival of species by the way.

[Jonesboy]

Fittest in the evolutionary sense means the species that is most adapted to survive for the climate in which it lives.  That could mean that the weakling blue bellied umpa lumpa survives longer than the strong and brave red bellied umpa dupa....strength is not necessarily fitness when it comes to survival.

If the fittest are those that survive in the worst of conditions then aren't they the stupidest?

A species doesn't survive in its environment. It's environment is what it needs to survive.

[xSilverPhinx]

Better put would be survival of those both able to survive (fittest) and able to reproduce (to pass on their genes).

Sometimes there's a logical disconnect between the two, a good example would be the male peacock, who inherited that tail that would negatively affect its ability to survive (escape predators, hide, etc.) but that was selected and passed on solely because it's what the females like.

You said
"Better put would be survival of those both able to survive (fittest) and able to reproduce (to pass on their genes)"

BUT - what sort of animal is not able to survive and procreate?

The peacock?- it's tail can be put away. Have you noticed? No. And that's how it survives.

The logic is simple, if an animal is not able to survive for some reason long enough to pass on it's genes, there's just no way that those genes will carry on into the next generation, suffer slight variations due to mutations, change their frequency in the population and so cause the species to change in a direction, based on both the environment and sexual selection.

The better an animal is able to survive the better, and so the more reproductive opportunities it has, and more of its genes go into the subsequent generation.

Sometimes this means that a small number of animals of a species simply finds a new niche, with no competition. It doesn't always mean that an animal has to outgrow another or get physically better in to outcompete. Just that it's more able to survive. 

Have you ever seen a peacock up close? A grown adult male does not have a small tail, even if closed. If it couldn't fly, being a slow animal, it probably wouldn't have been able to maintain it as a species.

[Whitney]

If the fittest are those that survive in the worst of conditions then aren't they the stupidest?

Do you think humans are stupid? because we are able to come up with ways to survive in all sorts of harsh conditions.

A species doesn't survives in its environment. It's environment is what it needs to survive.

fixed it for you.

I have to ask...are you seriously wanting to know about this or are you just asking questions hoping to stump someone?