such don't rule the world?
2007-01-28 07:28:14 · 24 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
It's not just the strongest and fittest that survive. Look in any nursing home. Man has manipulated that old rule of nature.
2007-01-28 07:34:32 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 1⤋
How long would an elephant or lion survive at the North Pole? Not long so they're only the strongest and fittest within their own habitats. Mankind adapted and evolved to become the "fittest" in every habitat by virtue of his greater intelligence.
2007-01-28 15:45:05 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
It's not the strongest or fittest, it's the most adapted to their environments. No species can be in a position to rule the world, things don't work like that. The natural environment attempts to maintain an equilibrium of all it's parts.
2007-01-28 15:43:55 · answer #3 · answered by Psyleet 3 · 4⤊ 1⤋
Because your assumption that only the strongest and fittest survive is ludicrous. What matters is not strength, but ability to reproduce the maximum number of offspring that will be successful in reproducing themselves.
Strength may give the lion an advantage, but too much strength means that the lion does not devote as much energy to producing successful offspring. Thus, reducing the number its descendants.
2007-01-28 15:44:28 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
A science fiction author -Asimov - I believe wrote in a story that intelligence isn't such an asset. A T-Rex would argue size and big claws would be better tools and would make a better case for it. Who knows.
Basically, by social organization and tool making - fire on down - we adapt our environment to meet our needs, we don't have to adapt to meet the environment. so we proliferated.
2007-01-28 15:34:34 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No organism rules the world (the concept that Man rules (i.e., holds dominion over) the World is an OT concept with dangerous ramifications). If they can keep from going extinct, organisms share the world.
Big and strong is not always better. There are expenses associated with being big and strong (e.g., slowness).
2007-01-28 15:41:40 · answer #6 · answered by ivorytowerboy 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋
how is the fittest surviving related in any way to "lions and elephants ruling the world", your question makes no sense, obviously being "fit" for a particular environment has nothing to do with being able to rule the world
and how many things do you thing will be able to "rule the world"? obviously only one kind of thing can be at the top of the food chain at any one time, that happens to be us
not a very good question
2007-01-28 15:34:30 · answer #7 · answered by Nick F 6 · 3⤊ 2⤋
Elephants and lions have no natural predator, except for man who thinks he does rule the world
2007-01-28 15:35:04 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Survival of the fittest is not an apt description of natural selection. It is really survival of the most adaptable species. Plants and animals tend to establish balanced ecosystems - it isn't a battle to the finish. Adaptations occur with genetic mutations, changes in environment, introduction of a foreign species, etc.
2007-01-28 15:34:35 · answer #9 · answered by NONAME 7 · 5⤊ 2⤋
something called intelligence and thought. They may be very smart but humans evolved to a level or intelligence, which gave us our advantage in evolution. We used tools, invented technology and science.
2007-01-28 15:33:55 · answer #10 · answered by skunkgrease 5 · 3⤊ 1⤋