Does 'Survival Of the Fittest' still apply?

[ShadowsAndDust]

I'm not too sure if this has been posted before, but here is my question.

Does the age old rule of 'Survival Of the Fittest' still apply in the world we live in today? I ask because Man has affected all of nature, any animal endangered is put in a zoo and made to reproduce in order to ensure survival of the species, even if it cannot compete in the world's ever evolving environment.

Answer away.

[RobertoIlias]

I have considered this myself but, more in regards to people than animals.

IE welfare for those who don't work

Is the human gene pool saturated with scum?

I suppose the point about animals depends on weather you consider human intervention part of nature or not.

Maybe part of being fittest now means being appealing enough to people so that they would want to save a species.

[ShadowsAndDust]

Perhaps, but the initial idea of evolution was that only the strongest, fastest, fittest etc. would survive.

[Wickian]

I'd say it still applies. Instead of being the best hunter/gatherer or whatever was most required when we could still be considered "wild", it's more a mix of intelligence and birthright today.....depending where you live.

Edited July 25, 2008 by Wickian

[Grandpa Greenman]

I would say it still applies. Life which adapts to change lives, if it doesn't it is dead and all offspring are null. The question is are human beings going to be able to adapt to coming environmental changes to come? Are we smart enough and fit enough to survive?

[mmissamy]

It applies in some aspects. Eg more attractive people are more likely to reproduce, smarter people do better in life etc. However as a society we put people with mental or physical disabilities in hospitals and let them reproduce (whether that is ethical is another topic) but if we are doing that then really Darwins theory of evolution goes down the drain.

[Rosewin]

Not sure about biological but social Darwinism has largely been discredited.

[RobertoIlias]

Not sure about biological but social Darwinism has largely been discredited.

Can you tell me more about this?

Is it like ugly people marry ugly people?

[cormac mac airt]

From a biological standpoint, I don't believe "Survival of the Fittest" applies. Many who are mentally or physically handicapped, due to accident, genetics or age wouldn't have lived very long in ages past. With the advent of technology and modern medicine we no longer have to be "physically" fit to survive. Intellectual fitness or fitness of appearance is an entirely different matter.

cormac

[RobertoIlias]

thats true enough, many people have terrible vision for example, but glasses, contacts, and laser surgery makes it so its not a factor.

Same goes for braces, diabetics, and many other common maladies.

[Copasetic]

I'm not too sure if this has been posted before, but here is my question.

Does the age old rule of 'Survival Of the Fittest' still apply in the world we live in today? I ask because Man has affected all of nature, any animal endangered is put in a zoo and made to reproduce in order to ensure survival of the species, even if it cannot compete in the world's ever evolving environment.

Answer away.

Not sure about biological but social Darwinism has largely been discredited.

Thats true Clovis. "Survival of the fittest" was coined by Herbert Spencer, an economist. The term has nothing to do with biological evolution, though at first glance it may appear true.

Take for instance this little guy below. Who is a full grown adult male Atlantic Salmon. He is what is called a cheater or "sneaker". He is not the largest, fastest, or strongest yet successfully breeds year after year. He also never needs to make the dangerous swim out to see as the other salmon or waste the energy and time protecting a nest like the territorially male salmon.

Edited July 26, 2008 by Copasetic

[Belle.]

I'm not too sure if this has been posted before, but here is my question.

Does the age old rule of 'Survival Of the Fittest' still apply in the world we live in today? I ask because Man has affected all of nature, any animal endangered is put in a zoo and made to reproduce in order to ensure survival of the species, even if it cannot compete in the world's ever evolving environment.

Answer away.

I think yes it still applies, but I don't think it was intended to indicate physical fitness in the way we currently use the term.

But ya, with the animals in the zoo - I think if there isn't the habitat for them to survive in, we should stop wasting our money on keeping these animals lineages limping along. Just as I think there could be money spent on better things than the cloning of the Tasmanian Tiger. But that is a little off topic sorry!

[Enigmatic Ghost]

Man is winning, and it is not for being fit, it is for being greedy, all of the animals in natures world are greatly disrupted…The only ones I see surviving anything are the cockroaches and the Ants and the Termites…

If you are talking is the natural cycle of Life disrupted because of Man yes, in invasive species introduced by man, and in the impacts Man has upon the natural habitats, the good news is that Nature is far more resilient and does and will bounce back even faster in time then the Models show, un less man impacts Nature and eliminates species completely… the Animals are losing natural habitats at a extremely alarming rate do to development in urban sprawl, we are seeing this in Bears, and Mountain Lions and Coyotes coming down into the populated areas more and more, and it is the Animals that will lose out, Mankind may politically sow we care but that is a losing situation because Mankind has a Greed factor and profits come first…

Sorry for the loom and gloom but I am jst telling like I see it, straight up and slean and to the point...

Pavot

[Leonardo]

I'm not too sure if this has been posted before, but here is my question.

Does the age old rule of 'Survival Of the Fittest' still apply in the world we live in today? I ask because Man has affected all of nature, any animal endangered is put in a zoo and made to reproduce in order to ensure survival of the species, even if it cannot compete in the world's ever evolving environment.

Answer away.

Is an animal successfully breeding in captivity less 'fit' than one in the wild?

The environment both animals are in are different, so a direct comparison would appear to be invalid.

[ShadowsAndDust]

Is an animal successfully breeding in captivity less 'fit' than one in the wild?

The environment both animals are in are different, so a direct comparison would appear to be invalid.

Ah but would you consider an animal completely dependent on a another animal for food, shelter etc. as worth living? In my view said animal is completely against the laws of nature. It may be that Man need no longer be the fittest, strongest etc. to survive but what about the animals? Some particular animals are hunted for their fur, such as Tigers etc., who, without human intervention, would survive extremely well on its own, and yet some of these animals have been hunted to near extinction, where as a lesser animal is given protection even if it would not survive out in the wild.

Take for example the dog below.

Alone, this particular dog wouldnt survive a day out in the wild, quite honestly, its pathetic. However, despite it being nowhere near fast enough or strong enough etc. Man protects it as a pet because it is 'cute'.

[ShadowsAndDust]

Man is winning, and it is not for being fit, it is for being greedy, all of the animals in natures world are greatly disrupted…The only ones I see surviving anything are the cockroaches and the Ants and the Termites…

If you are talking is the natural cycle of Life disrupted because of Man yes, in invasive species introduced by man, and in the impacts Man has upon the natural habitats, the good news is that Nature is far more resilient and does and will bounce back even faster in time then the Models show, un less man impacts Nature and eliminates species completely… the Animals are losing natural habitats at a extremely alarming rate do to development in urban sprawl, we are seeing this in Bears, and Mountain Lions and Coyotes coming down into the populated areas more and more, and it is the Animals that will lose out, Mankind may politically sow we care but that is a losing situation because Mankind has a Greed factor and profits come first…

Sorry for the loom and gloom but I am jst telling like I see it, straight up and slean and to the point...

Pavot

Thanks pavot, quite an interesting take on things.

Are these bears, mountain lions and coyotes coming into the populated areas to scavenge for food? or protection?

[Raptor]

Thats true Clovis. "Survival of the fittest" was coined by Herbert Spencer, an economist. The term has nothing to do with biological evolution, though at first glance it may appear true.

Take for instance this little guy below. Who is a full grown adult male Atlantic Salmon. He is what is called a cheater or "sneaker". He is not the largest, fastest, or strongest yet successfully breeds year after year. He also never needs to make the dangerous swim out to see as the other salmon or waste the energy and time protecting a nest like the territorially male salmon.

My understanding was that the term 'fitness' was used to describe an organisms ability to survive and reproduce, not any outstanding physical ability. Which would mean that that little guy is in fact among the fittest despite perhaps not being the largest or fastest, no?

[SRCivic98]

The term "Survival of the fittest" applies some what but think about this. An athlete fell over dead a couple weeks ago with a heart attack and died. 100% healthy and dies just like that. An obsese person walks 1/2 mile and thinks it's an achievement then eats like no one's business but no health problems at all? An animal known to people to be dumb figures out how to get out of its cage and the smartest one just sits in it and doesn't do anything? If you understand where I'm going with this then great if not then read it some more and think about it. haha. It's easy to get disstracted and confused but it's also easy to figure things out. So basically what I'm saying is, you haven't got to the smartest, fastest, or strongest animal or person to survive. It's all about how willing are you to fight to be alive or are you just gonna sit around and let time kill you slowly?

[Copasetic]

My understanding was that the term 'fitness' was used to describe an organisms ability to survive and reproduce, not any outstanding physical ability. Which would mean that that little guy is in fact among the fittest despite perhaps not being the largest or fastest, no?

Thats correct Raptor. That is how fitness is used in biology, the term "Survival of the fittest" though and images it brings to mind was coined and applied in social contexts. In nature the fittest individual is often counter-intuitive to qualities we define as "most fit" from a human perspective. That was the point of the picture, to us, on impulse, that little guy would appear least fit compared to the large territorial male salmon, but as you pointed out he is actually one of the most fit in the population.

[Copasetic]

Is an animal successfully breeding in captivity less 'fit' than one in the wild?

The environment both animals are in are different, so a direct comparison would appear to be invalid.

Thats a good point Leo, one I was trying to make, but you made it much more directly.

Fitness is a relative term to the environment and circumstance an organism lives in --Not to what humans deem most fit.

I really dislike the term "Survival of the fittest" because who the most fit is, is often counter-intuitive. Cheaters, such as the salmon, are some of the most fit of the population. One likely could not tell this though by looking at physical attributes --Which I think "Survival of the fittest" implies.

Edited July 26, 2008 by Copasetic

[ShadowsAndDust]

Thats a good point Leo, one I was trying to make, but you made it much more directly.

Fitness is a relative term to the environment and circumstance an organism lives in --Not to what humans deem most fit.

I really dislike the term "Survival of the fittest" because who the most fit is, is often counter-intuitive. Cheaters, such as the salmon, are some of the most fit of the population. One likely could not tell this though by looking at physical attributes --Which I think "Survival of the fittest" implies.

You seem to have missed my point, the question was if the survival of the fittest still applies, even with Man on the scene.

Hmm, lets say that this fish you are speaking of is the fittest in its environment because it is, as you put it, a 'cheater'. However, lets say that these fish are then hunted my Man for their meat, through no fault of its own, it could very quickly become extinct.

[Dr. D]

I'm not too sure if this has been posted before, but here is my question.

Does the age old rule of 'Survival Of the Fittest' still apply in the world we live in today? I ask because Man has affected all of nature, any animal endangered is put in a zoo and made to reproduce in order to ensure survival of the species, even if it cannot compete in the world's ever evolving environment.

Answer away.

Could it be that through progress man has redefined the "fitest?"

Perhaps it is now the most intelligent . . . . the richest . . . . the best educated . . . .

[Leonardo]

You seem to have missed my point, the question was if the survival of the fittest still applies, even with Man on the scene.

Hmm, lets say that this fish you are speaking of is the fittest in its environment because it is, as you put it, a 'cheater'. However, lets say that these fish are then hunted my Man for their meat, through no fault of its own, it could very quickly become extinct.

I don't think your point has been missed so much as you have made a mistake in what you have defined as 'fitness'.

Fitness is a species' ability to be reproductively successful in the environment they inhabit. It does not exclusively mean their ability to survive 'in the wild'. Fitness, in biological terms, is a very broad description that encompasses all factors of the species' environment - including other organisms' effect on them.

[Helen of Annoy]

Fitness is a species' ability to be reproductively successful in the environment they inhabit. It does not exclusively mean their ability to survive 'in the wild'. Fitness, in biological terms, is a very broad description that encompasses all factors of the species' environment - including other organisms' effect on them.

At this particular moment and from civilized mans point of view, “in the wild” may seem outdated, unimportant. But our civilization is only few thousand years old and I see no guarantee it will last forever. So, for me, the fittest is still the one able to survive on his own.

The fact that both we and many species of animals adapted to “unnatural” life doesn’t mean the laws of nature stopped working. And I do not consider adaptation to modern way of life to be positive. Actually, it’s dangerous to humans as a species – every day more and more people are completely unable to do anything beside eating, sleeping and staring at the TV. We are becoming to be like those cute little artificially bred dogs, unable to survive without help. This is not “the fittest”, this is “the fattest”.

[Leonardo]

At this particular moment and from civilized mans point of view, “in the wild” may seem outdated, unimportant. But our civilization is only few thousand years old and I see no guarantee it will last forever. So, for me, the fittest is still the one able to survive on his own.

The fact that both we and many species of animals adapted to “unnatural” life doesn’t mean the laws of nature stopped working. And I do not consider adaptation to modern way of life to be positive. Actually, it’s dangerous to humans as a species – every day more and more people are completely unable to do anything beside eating, sleeping and staring at the TV. We are becoming to be like those cute little artificially bred dogs, unable to survive without help. This is not “the fittest”, this is “the fattest”.

When the environment a species inhabit changes the relative qualities necessary for reproductive success (the fitness) of the species also changes. We can't let ourselves be limited in what we define fitness as except to define it relative to the environment of the species.

It is also worth considering the broadness of qualities that contribute to a species fitness and that not all individuals of that species may exhibit all of those traits. In fact not all may be necessary in a single organism for it to have comparative fitness with another individual of other qualities.

Edited July 26, 2008 by Leonardo