Was Darwin's 'survival of the fittest' really apply to the real world?

Question

When I think about the real world, many times, the fittest do not survive. Factors like accidents and dumb luck are ignored.

In fact, many of the theories about selective breeding, etc, especially about how mates are chosen because of their ability to survive, blah blah, I think ignore too many real-world factors that are too complicated to factor. For example, you might say that women marry pro athletes or rich businessmen so their children will be successful, but look at how many fail to live up to expectations. Prince Fielder and Luke Walton are exceptions, but what about Michael Jordan's kids?

I think it's all about randomness and luck. Boiling life down to equations and predetermined outcomes will never work. That's my theory.

I mean "Does", not "Was", I rewrote the question and it came out wrong...

Valcus, I'm no religious freak, so save the rant.

Answer 1

You are overthinking it. Let's look at it a different way. If the American government did not hand out charity to poor families, they would have a hard time surviving, their children would not go to college for free and would end up just like them.

Only those with ambition to succeed, who are smart enough to work a job that pays well would survive.

Answer 2

You demonstrate a fundamental lack of understanding of Darwin's theory and the evidence upon which is is based. It is clear that you are regurgitating dogmatic pap fed you by your preacher.
It is important for Christians to understand that the fundamental difference between science and religion or other beliefs about the non-physical world is the basic epistemology or method of knowing. Religion relies on tradition, revelation, inspiration and authoritarian dogma. Science relies almost exclusively on measurable data to formulate theories. When enough data is amassed about a topic, relationships are perceived and testing and further data collection is undertaken to fill in knowledge gaps. Religions never do this; they have a dogma, a gospel, an unchanging text that is universally true and defend it against measurable reality. The world is no longer flat, the Earth is no longer the center of the universe and not even the center of our solar system. The universe was not created in the last five, ten or twenty thousand years; it evolved. We will clone humans, we will grow fetal material for research and medical engineering, we will modify animal life just as we have modified plants. If it is not done in the United States it will be one in China and we will be paying the Chinese for medicine and medical technology that we abandoned just like the Christian oligarchy abandoned scientists in the past.
Christians have good reason to be terrified of science, particularly those who believe that the Bible is literally true. Science will discover more and more that the Bible, when it comes to the physical world, is not an accurate description. Furthermore, Biblical knowledge cannot produce pollution free car engines to reduce global warming which Christians deny exists.
Spending any time at all debating scientific theory or evidence on the basis of religion makes believers appear foolish.
On the other hand, when Christians, Muslims and other religions actually apply the teachings of their leaders, it can be a beautiful thing. Unless they decide to choose up sides and kill each other as happens so often. Then religion sucks.

Answer 3

Survival of the fittest applies to the real world because it was developed by observing the real world. There are of course some instances where chance destroys an organism, but another way to spin that situation is to say that the organism was not fitted for that situation- and thus did not survive it. If you ever really sit and observe the world around you, you will probably notice that more often than not, "survival of the fittest" is happening everywhere.

Answer 4

Social darwinism is bunk. "Natural selection" as we understand it doesn't actually apply to humans, because it assumes that there's an environment doing the selecting.

Humans change their environment to make it ideal for themselves to live in. Thus, no more selection pressures, and no more natural selection.

In a normal ecology, with non-human animals, "survival of the fittest" is quite accurate. There are accidents and good and bad luck, of course, but the degree to which that affects the outcome of animal reproduction is very limited, mostly because "luck" and "accidents" are statistically unlikely, and there are lots of animals running around trying to reproduce.

Answer 5

You have to take human beings out of the equation first. We cheat with medicine and such. Animals still do it the old fashion way. Survival of the fittest. Odds are better, but not absolute that the strongest male will breed with the best woman. In my opinion, evolution is nothing but mistakes that, by shear chance works better and probably out ate the older model.

Answer 6

darwin did not claim survival of the fittest, but natural selection. the difference is large, but not specific to humans. natural selection explains why certain adaptations occur for the same animal or plant. survival of the fittest implies a battle for supremacy, not allowing for necesary adaptations for slightly different conditions. the differences in turtles and lizards on the different islands of the galapogoes were adptations due to differing conditons they faced on the islands.

Answer 7

From the perspective of child-rearing, pro-athletes and rich businessmen are poor mates, in that they do not necessarily show evidence of sound overall genetics, and they do not show evidence of having time to invest in child care.
A better choice would be a local man, whose parents and siblings are known and healthy, and who leaves his job at work at 5 PM.

Answer 8

Humans have reveresed the evolutionary process for themselves. Due to technological advancements, "survival of the fittest" no longer applies to us. Only to animals.