Survival of the fittest

[The Magic Pudding]

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

What has stupidity got to do with it?
In the sense of evolution I mean, not this thread.

The vast majority of animals aren't self-conscious, they are machines produced by their genes to strive to survive.

If your life is absolute crap the Jonestown solution may be valid, but perhaps the least stupid find a way to make life worth living.  As a human I experience the world as good on balance, food, friends, family, nature, the work of clever people.  I suppose genes have supplied me with an appreciation of my environment which outweighs my distaste.  And then there's that hope thing, that's a tricky bit of evolution.

[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.

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.

Incorrect. And don't quote-mine my again.

The basis of evolution is variation in a population with a positive selection pressure for the traits/characteristics that lead to successful reproduction/procreation. The environment is the sum total of selection pressures and the environment is contiguous and continuously variable from the top of Everest to the bottom of Challenger Deep, from the Antarctic to Death Valley and from competition with other organisms and with other organisms in the same spieces.

[Tank]

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?

I think he's just an anti-evolution science denier theist, but that's just my opinion, an opinion that is being reinforced by each of his posts.

[Recusant]

I'll second Whitney's question. Also, I'd appreciate it if you could give us an idea of how you think that the biosphere operates, Jonesboy. Just an overview, so people have an idea where you're coming from. Specifically, do you think that the theory of evolution provides a good description of how organisms relate to the environment and each other over time?

[Squid]

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.

You've made the mistake that many do in relation to conceptualizing the subject at hand.  "Fitness" in evolutionary biology is not the same as the colloquial term.  In evolution fitness refers to the combination of factors which lead to the organism reproducing viable offspring.  It doesn't matter how big, strong, smart et cetera an organism is, if they do not produce viable offspring then they were not what would be considered "fit".  It is the propagation of the genes that is the central point.  However, the myriad of factors involved make it quite complicated.  For instance, someone mentioned the peacock.  Male peacocks are known for their elaborate tail feathers.  They're feathers are large and ornate which one, at first, may think could be a detriment to survival and by proxy to reproduce.  However, those feathers are the result of sexual selection.  Female peacocks seem to enjoy a guy with a nice big plume of feathers.  This characteristic becomes a physical "measure" for the females of genetic quality.  However, this is just one part of the many at work in what leads to an organism being "fit".

Another thing to keep in mind is that environments are not static, they are dynamic and ever-changing.  This means what is considered "fit" now may not cut it later down the road.

[Pharaoh Cat]

"Survival of the fittest" is a tautology because the "fittest" are defined as those who survive. 

"Those," meanwhile, depending on context, may be individuals, or one or more species, or particular genetic lineages within a species - the latter two entailing not only avoidance of death but also accomplishment of reproduction.

Incidentally, I've been writing this post for fifteen minutes because my cat keeps attacking me!  A zest for rough play has helped make her species fit!

[Squid]

Survival isn't the end game of evolutionary "fitness".  It definitely helps but, as I stated earlier, if an organism survives but fails to reproduce and propagate the genes then survival didn't mean all that much for them.  Also, fitness isn't a static thing either, just like the environment in which organisms live.  Drickamer et al. (2002) in their text on animal behavior try to get this point across:

...the adaptive value of certain genes or genotypes depends on existing environmental conditions. A genotype may have high fitness in one environment, but
low fitness in another. Fitness is therefore not an unchanging characteristic of an organism, such as eye color, but is determined by both the organism's characteristics and
the environment. 

How should fitness be measured...We generally test our hypotheses about fitness of different genotypes and phenotypes by measuring the reproductive success of the
organisms in question. Reproductive success is a measure of an organism's production of offspring. It may be measured in several ways, including the number of offspring born,
the number that survive to weaning, or the number that survive to mating.

Fitness is a property of traits or genotypes, while reproductive success is a property of individuals. (pp.48)

The actual phrase itself is a poor heuristic as it can lead people astray into thinking, as has been pointed out, that fitness is some logically circular concept.  In reality, it comes down to the propagation of genes - passing genes on to another generation; the production of viable offspring.  Not to mention that the focusing on a phrase as representative of the veracity of an entire scientific theory is a tad bit too simplistic...just a tad 

* Drickamer, L., Vessey, S. & Jakob, E. (2002). Animal behavior: Mechanisms, ecology, evolution. (5th ed.). New York: McGraw Hill.

[Pharaoh Cat]

Also, fitness isn't a static thing either, just like the environment in which organisms live. 

That's why I deem the more meaningful concept to be adaptability.  That's the trait we humans have to such a degree that our species could rightfully be designated the king of beasts.  But of course our adaptability is highly contingent on how many of us are working together.  One human alone can survive a lot but nowhere near as much as a thousand working together could.  Make it a million and what you have is civilization, the supreme adaptation, enabling survival even on the surface of the moon, and perhaps, in the future, on the boiling surface of Mercury.

[Squid]

I see the "survival of the fittest" concept as useless outside of attempting to introduce people to natural selection.  It's more of a educational lead in than a scientific "rule".

[xSilverPhinx]

I see the "survival of the fittest" concept as useless outside of attempting to introduce people to natural selection.  It's more of a educational lead in than a scientific "rule".

For future reference, would 'best able to survive and propagate genes' be a good description?

[Pharaoh Cat]

For future reference, would 'best able to survive and propagate genes' be a good description?

It's still a tautology.  Those best able to survive and propagate genes, survive and propagate genes.

[xSilverPhinx]

For future reference, would 'best able to survive and propagate genes' be a good description?

It's still a tautology.  Those best able to survive and propagate genes, survive and propagate genes.

Is it? ??? Those best able?

[Pharaoh Cat]

For future reference, would 'best able to survive and propagate genes' be a good description?

It's still a tautology.  Those best able to survive and propagate genes, survive and propagate genes.

Is it? ??? Those best able?

I was dozing off at the keyboard when I posted that.  Sorry.  You're right, it isn't a tautology.  I would submit, nevertheless, that's it's too obvious to be useful.

How would we determine if something was best able to survive and propagate genes?  We would check to see if it had done so.  How else?  Either it's dead or not.  It reproduced or not.  Both survival and reproduction are zero-sum games, yes/no, win/lose, did/didn't, unless you want to count offspring and award the prize to the creature with the most kids running around - but that can be misleading as it rests on a faulty assumption, namely, that more offspring is better than less, whereas in reality the number of offspring is optimal when right-sized, not too many, not too few, so as to avoid overrunning the environment and leaving it a wasteland of no use to any living thing except maybe bacteria, while also avoiding extinction for one's own species.

Better, in my opinion, is to tease apart the various competitions any creature is engaged in, and look for the qualities that help win each competition.

Competition: to mate.
Quality: attractiveness to the opposite gender.
Quality: scariness in the eyes of competitors.

Competition: to eat.
Quality: ability to digest local organisms.
Quality: ability to be adequately nourished by what is digested.
Quality: ability to capture or bite off pieces of local organisms so as to digest them.
Quality: ability to get to local organisms faster or more easily than competitors.

Competition: to not be eaten.
Quality: having no predators.
Quality: failing the above, invisibility to predators.
Quality: failing the above, ability to scare off predators.
Quality: failing the above, ability to escape predators.
Quality: failing the above, ability to fight off predators.

Competition: to cheat the environment of one's corpse.
Quality: ability to breathe the local air and be adequately respirated.
Quality: ability to drink the local water and be adequately hydrated.
Quality: ability to tolerate the local extremes of barometric pressure.
Quality: ability to tolerate the local extremes of temperature.
Quality: ability to navigate the local terrain.

[xSilverPhinx]

For future reference, would 'best able to survive and propagate genes' be a good description?

It's still a tautology.  Those best able to survive and propagate genes, survive and propagate genes.

Is it? ??? Those best able?

I was dozing off at the keyboard when I posted that.  Sorry.  You're right, it isn't a tautology.  I would submit, nevertheless, that's it's too obvious to be useful.

How would we determine if something was best able to survive and propagate genes?  We would check to see if it had done so.  How else?  Either it's dead or not.  It reproduced or not.  Both survival and reproduction are zero-sum games, yes/no, win/lose, did/didn't, unless you want to count offspring and award the prize to the creature with the most kids running around - but that can be misleading as it rests on a faulty assumption, namely, that more offspring is better than less, whereas in reality the number of offspring is optimal when right-sized, not too many, not too few, so as to avoid overrunning the environment and leaving it a wasteland of no use to any living thing except maybe bacteria, while also avoiding extinction for one's own species.

Better, in my opinion, is to tease apart the various competitions any creature is engaged in, and look for the qualities that help win each competition.

Competition: to mate.
Quality: attractiveness to the opposite gender.
Quality: scariness in the eyes of competitors.

Competition: to eat.
Quality: ability to digest local organisms.
Quality: ability to be adequately nourished by what is digested.
Quality: ability to capture or bite off pieces of local organisms so as to digest them.
Quality: ability to get to local organisms faster or more easily than competitors.

Competition: to not be eaten.
Quality: having no predators.
Quality: failing the above, invisibility to predators.
Quality: failing the above, ability to scare off predators.
Quality: failing the above, ability to escape predators.
Quality: failing the above, ability to fight off predators.

Competition: to cheat the environment of one's corpse.
Quality: ability to breathe the local air and be adequately respirated.
Quality: ability to drink the local water and be adequately hydrated.
Quality: ability to tolerate the local extremes of barometric pressure.
Quality: ability to tolerate the local extremes of temperature.
Quality: ability to navigate the local terrain.

I agree, though I meant it as a more encompassing and summarised definition, though obviously superficial and lacking any explanatory depth.

There are many factors than can influence fitness, those you listed along with other non random ones such as the ability to use energy more efficiently (which is another big one).

[Pharaoh Cat]

There are many factors than can influence fitness, those you listed along with other non random ones such as the ability to use energy more efficiently (which is another big one).

Yes - that's a big one.

I guess I would rather we talked about competitive advantage rather than fitness.  Organisms are engaged in four broad competitions - to mate, to eat, to not be eaten, and to cheat the environment of one's corpse - and those genes that convey competitive advantage will be propagated into perpetuity until other genes appear that convey greater advantage and we suddenly have a new victor in the jungle.