Survival Of The Fittest - Stated Clearly 

Nice mathematical way to put it. Or simply keep doing things again and again until success 😅

@@phamanh4767 yeah you cna make a n equaition for it easily

Do unto others as you do not want done unto you ❤is NO SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST

Yep, the best interpretation of that phrase, even though it was uttered by an economist.

*reproduce

"can adapt to" suggests that they are changing intentionally. At an individual level none of them change at all. At a population level they change slowly to favour traits which suit the environment via selection pressures.

@@ROFT I think youre reading into my comment "can adapt to" is about the ability to do so, not the choice of doing so

@@haalandfilms1695 individuals don't adapt

@The Looo animated place wait a minute idk if I am high for some reason but did you take that from fitmc?

@The Looo animated place wait, doesn't he keep an inflatable banana named Dr Peele in his backyard?

Kent Hovind comes to mind. Also, it turns out that "survival of the fittest" came from eugenicists.

@Jaylen King I can confirm that there are me today

This, exactly. Thinking that "fitness" just means physical fitness, instead of any/all skills that allow an organism to overcome their environment, is the root of the problem here. Natural Selection is still very much survival of the fittest and always will be.

@@KevinJohnson-cv2no "And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments." Matthew 19:17 Christian doctrine makes it clear that people are deeply flawed. People do what they want and what they (we) want is often self-destructive. I'm not smarter nor better than anybody. Believing in God has made me act better. It has also taken a lot of confusion out of my mind. Always room for improvement. The materialists believe in 'survival of the fittest' because it is a tenant of Scientism. (Scientism, Atheism, and Evolution are all the same thing to me.) What that tells me is that if a person is clever enough to lie and get away with it, then it is okay. It takes high intelligence to tell lies and maintain them. Why shouldn't a superior intellect just be able to fool people and steal from them and kill anyone that gets in their way. He has a stronger mind than them so being stronger makes him more fit to survive. It's evolution. Don't for one minute think that there hasn't been highly intelligent criminals. Gacy, Bundy and Manson were said to be genius lever IQ's and they shared the same beliefs as the Atheist: survival of the fittest, no Divine retribution or absolute morality. So just take what you want. You are smarter and stronger. You can hide stuff and lie because you are smarter. Smarter makes you more fit. Fool everybody, rape, kill steal. You are the fittest because of your superior intellect and you can probably get away with it for a while. Communists in China and Russia governed with little to no religious influence as far as they could. Their atheism led to a lot of war, destruction, death, and lots of it from what I hear. They were fighting for the same principles that atheists, evolutionists, materialists espouse. Religion is a tool for social organization. Any tool can be made into a weapon, (and that includes science, too.) In fact, just about anything can be made into a weapon. Religion has certainly been used to manipulate the masses into conflict. Nevertheless, according to the Bible, we Christians are not superior to anyone else in any way. Not morally, ethically nor intellectually. Speaking for myself, I do try to stay on the straight and narrow. Some days are better than others. Evolutionists, materialists, atheists are entitled to their opinions. And God Bless Them! I hope their beliefs serve them well. We are all on a path that is particular to ourself. Consider: People are natural born f-----ups. There may be a few angels out there, but my experience has been that we are our own worst enemy. I don't believe anything unless I can prove it too myself and it takes more than people's opinions on what evidence means for me to be convinced of any theories. From the beginning of the Bible, God gave instructions to His subjects. The penalty for not listening to God was gnashing teeth and wearing sackcloth, and maybe having your hometown sacked, looted and burnt to the ground. Jesus has been around 2000 years or so. The Commandments given to Moses for about 3300 years, Golden Rule ethics for over 3,000. These things aren't going to change, but the wise men and women of today, will turn to dust and blow away. Praise Jesus! I respect all other manners and methods of reaching the Divine! I hope their beliefs serve them well! Forgiveness, love and compassion are all the same thing. Bitterness, egotism and self hatred are all the same thing. "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’[a] 31 The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[b] There is no commandment greater than these.” Mark 12:30 - 31 (The best advice I ever got.) I can't love everybody. Some people make me sick. I get bitter. I don't have the big Jesus heart that is required to love everybody and myself. But I aim for it. I hope you all have a good Holiday Season!

@@user-ii6xm2we7l very insightful

heh heh... all creatures just care about getting a lot of sex with the best looking among our species... Mother Nature takes care of the rest.

I'm in Ecuador often but I've never been to the Islands. I'd love an insider's scoop on the best way to see them! My email is on the Stated Clearly website.

@@StatedClearly I sent you a message through your website

Except this idiot got everything wrong. The man that coined the frase "survival of the fittest" was not some guy that was Darwin's biggest fan, he was Herbert Spencer (27 April 1820 - 8 December 1903) an English polymath active as a philosopher, psychologist, biologist, sociologist, and anthropologist. Spencer originated the expression "survival of the fittest", which he coined in Principles of Biology (1864) after reading Charles Darwin's 1859 book On the Origin of Species. So he lied and purposely dumbed that bit of information down The thing that he didn't talk about was this concept basically means. A cheetah must run faster than the slowest antelope or it will die. An antelope must run faster than the fastest cheetah or it will die. This statement is observably true. Anything born with less than near perfection will be eaten and not reproduce. Since many animals only have one offspring, this refutes the claim of shear numbers.

And it goes both ways. Those who live longer, in an environment that has scarce resources, end up competing with their offspring. If they can help their offspring to reproduce, it's a net benefit, but otherwise, it's actually an adaptive trait to die and get out of the way of their descendants. This is why I usually say evolution selects for those traits that produce the most grandchildren, not children. 😏

Yes. Maybe Jon could make a video on this? Richard Dawkins can be a little hard at times.

@@johnathancorgan3994 there is a tradeof in both models.

So you're saying there's a chance!

Except this idiot got everything wrong. The man that coined the frase "survival of the fittest" was not some guy that was Darwin's biggest fan, he was Herbert Spencer (27 April 1820 - 8 December 1903) an English polymath active as a philosopher, psychologist, biologist, sociologist, and anthropologist. Spencer originated the expression "survival of the fittest", which he coined in Principles of Biology (1864) after reading Charles Darwin's 1859 book On the Origin of Species. So he lied and purposely dumbed that bit of information down The thing that he didn't talk about was this concept basically means. A cheetah must run faster than the slowest antelope or it will die. An antelope must run faster than the fastest cheetah or it will die. This statement is observably true. Anything born with less than near perfection will be eaten and not reproduce. Since many animals only have one offspring, this refutes the claim of shear numbers.

Burma 😮

Thanks!

Except this idiot got everything wrong. The man that coined the frase "survival of the fittest" was not some guy that was Darwin's biggest fan, he was Herbert Spencer (27 April 1820 - 8 December 1903) an English polymath active as a philosopher, psychologist, biologist, sociologist, and anthropologist. Spencer originated the expression "survival of the fittest", which he coined in Principles of Biology (1864) after reading Charles Darwin's 1859 book On the Origin of Species. So he lied and purposely dumbed that bit of information down The thing that he didn't talk about was this concept basically means. A cheetah must run faster than the slowest antelope or it will die. An antelope must run faster than the fastest cheetah or it will die. This statement is observably true. Anything born with less than near perfection will be eaten and not reproduce. Since many animals only have one offspring, this refutes the claim of shear numbers.

Agreed.

Many people do assume that.

A lot of people assume that, and creationists deliberately use it to build a strawman argument against evolution.

@@ThatSpazamataz Oh that's perfect, thank you for the recommendation!

We go over it in the "genes eye view" animation

Which is why a mutation which allows transfer to another species can be so devastating, as they haven't evolved to be benign.

You can have a binary sibling die, but that's not an ancestor. Binary siblings have been dying throughout time, including mass extinctions, but all today's species consist only of unbroken chains going back to the beginning.

When a cell grows large enough, it splits into 2. The first cell didn't die, so the resulting 2 cells never had an ancestor die, instead their ancestor became them. This is true for all cells alive today.

Do you mind explaining it to the non engineering majors

If someone has an explanation please let me know.

I'd happily attempt to answer, but I honestly don't know what you're asking. I assume "Steam cells" are "stem cells," and "leaves longer" is "lives longer," but even adjusting those I don't understand your question. If you're asking why all creatures don't just do whatever they need to in order to live longer... they do. My chances of living longer and procreating are increased if I cooperate with you than if I steal your sh!t and do what I want. No clue how stem cells entered into it, or why you think they have anything to do with length of life (if I have that correct).

@@devb9912 I mean leave longer generically. Not dying of old age. P.S. Sorry for the spelling. As you can probably tell English is not my first language.

@@CocolinoFan leave longer, or live longer? And generically??? Genetically? Seriously not trying to be an ass, just trying to figure out what you're asking/talking about.

@@devb9912 Dud is simple. If an organism lives 10 years more, that's 10 more years in witch it can reproduce. So why didn't natural selection select for that. Long, young, life.

Adapt or perish.

Changing the problem with the word "fittest" to the problem with the word "adapt."

Darwin was contemporary with Mendel, when genetics principles were only first discovered and dismissed by scientific community (and Darwin himself), so there was no study of genetics at the time at all, how could it be driven by eugenics idk. Also eugenics, although unethical, is indeed a valid (from scientific point of view) method of enhancing human species (meaning of course not nazi methods of breeding the true arian race, but scientific study of human selection). Successful examples of millenia of selection of different species is valid proof of concept, and thinking that these rules can't be applied to humans is stupid, human as much a mammal as a dog or a cat.

There was no study of genetics when Darwin was alive.

@@xn4pl i was talking about the guy who create this catchy frase. Darwing was not one of those. But his brother was and most of genetics was driven by eugenics in these early days.

@@TheAvsouto Cousin not brother.

You can define it based on if they reproduce and how much. Nature doesn’t “detect” who is a better reproduce. You either reproduce or you do not.