08-01-04 11:33, tgpedersen wrote:
> "Survival of the fittest" doesn't sound nice, admitted, but has it
> been abolished? When did that happen?
The theory of natural selection has not been abolished; it has been
incorporated into a more general theory. With the development of
genetics (in particular, population genetics with its mathematical
models and laboratory experiments) a new synthesis became necessary.
Darwin can't be blamed for the incompleteness of his original theory
(brilliant as it remains); he knew nothing about genes. Selective
pressures affect evolution by altering the frequency of some genes in a
population, but many genetic changes spread thanks to random drift (and
some other factors), not because of natural selection. This means that
genetic change may be (and very often is) adaptively neutral. I can't
discuss it here at length, since it's essentially OT (except that there
are clear analogies between natural and linguistic evolution). If you're
interested in the details, join any group that discusses evolutionary
biology.
As for "survival of the fittest", it's of course only a slogan. "The
fittest" may stand a better chance in the long run, but a great many of
the less fit also manage to survive in each generation. Survival is
differential, not a matter of total success versus total extinction.
Piotr