Survival Of The Fittest - Stated Clearly
Вставка
- Опубліковано 1 чер 2024
- Support us on Patreon: / statedclearly
When many people think of evolution by natural selection, they think "Survival of the Fittest". This phrase is often interpreted to mean "only the strong shall survive" but when you look at how common tiny microbes are, that interpretation is clearly not true. What does survival of the fittest really mean?
#Darwin #Evolution #Biology
At it's core evolution is simply the non-random selection of random (heritable) variation.
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
Survival of the best to 'Fit in'
or in other words, the ones who can adapt to their environments are the ones who will survive
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
What irritates me the most is when evolution deniers conflate their misconception of this concept with Hitler's idea of racial superiority.
@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
I’ve always described evolution as “what continues to exist, tends to continue to exist”
The "physically fit" sense of the word "fit" was first recorded in 1935. The word "fitness" only meant "suited to the circumstances" before then, which sounds exactly like the technical definition ("those that happen to be better reproducers"). So the confusion comes less from early writers thinking "fit" meant "strong" and more from the colloquial definition moving away from the now technical one.
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
I've recently heard someone question evolution because they didn't understand how a fit T-Rex could evolve into an unfit chicken (never mind that T-Rex is not the ancestor of modern birds, only a close relative). The thing is fitness is about reproductive success (how likely are you to survive to have children, how many children do you have, and how long do they survive?), chickens are thriving, T-Rexes are not.
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.
Many people miss the point that it is *copies* of genes that are subject to evolution, and it doesn't matter if those copies come from you or from an individual who shares the same genes. This leads to what is called "kin selection". Also, the qualities that make organisms "fit" are any qualities that enhance the chances of its genes being copied. Depending on circumstances, these qualities can be having a co-operative nature as opposed to a competitive one.
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.
Thank you so much from a Galapagos Naturalist guide. I have used your videos before for briefings on board and the are a hit! this new one completes my Charles Darwin lecture perfectly! You are the best at explaining things clearly and in a funny way.
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.
Thank you again from a teacher in Myanmar. I already have used most of the previous ones with much success. More, please!
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 😮
awesome video!
I am going to share your channel to my students.
Cant believe I've only now stumbled upon your channel. You are an excellent teacher. The art of explaning in a digestible way is rare at this level of detail. Thank you!
P.S. - I would love if you could cover some of Robert Sapolski's work if you haven't already.
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.
So what you're saying is that if I become a Patreon, I indirectly increase the chances my name will spread throughout this environment... interesting...
Why no video in long time....?
BANGER VIDEO Jon! Excellent job!
Thanks!
Another great and well explained video. This is great for anyone that doesn’t understand natural selection as this is explained in a way that is very easy to understand. Great video as always. 👍👍
Agreed.
Greetings from lraq ❤❤
So many things falling (whale, bird poop, brain) and making great sounds. Love it!
Thank you very much, I have been trying to find some materials for my report about Genetic Algorithm and my program and just found this amazing video about Survival of the Fittest. If you do not mind can I use your quote "Those which happen to be better reproducers tend to reproduce better", I will also cite you in my paper?
Hey, not video related but, i've read the online article you made that teaches you how to properly engage in an online debate.
Great read, i'll keep in mind all the advice you've provided in the article😁
Your videos should be super popular
Amazing channel. One of the best
awesome video! I cant wait to see what's next in my class of genetics at the college
I love to see my name immortalized in this video 🎉
Great content, as always!
Love yhis channel. Just found. Subscribed.
There is another aspect to be considered. This is the wisdom not to exhaust the resources that sustain the survival of a certain species. Humans are obviously failing in this, which is causing the extinction of their species (and sadly countless others). So, rather than "survival of the fittest", I would say "survival of the most sustainable".
Very clear. Good job.:)
Thank you for making these. They’ve been REALLY helpful in teaching evolution and many other sciences to my students.
Please keep making them! I’d love more chemistry videos too!
Great video! How about creating a similar video about memes (as in Dawkins, not as in funny image in social media)?
Wise you could upload more frequently
It's maybe more clear to present it as "proliferation of the more fitting."
Survival of the fittest implies lineage, for anyone who understands evolution - as in, survival of the fittest lineage. However I can see how the phrase can be misinterpreted, especially when fitness already has a different meaning.
Survival of the fetus.
European here. It used to be ‘Survival of the Fattest’. But when pronounced with an East Cockney accent, it sounds like ‘fittest’. Pronounced with a generic New Zealand Kiwi accent, it sounds almost the same. Since the Origin of Species was published in the mid 19th century, this makes a lot of sense. The skinny types usually didn’t last long, in London’s East End slums. We know that from Charles Dickens, who was a contemporary of Charles Darwin.
I love your videos! I have been thinking, how many generations can we trace "my genes" in the genes that are in the coming related generations of children?
I love your videos really much
I love your video! TYSM
Thanks for the video :)
well i never assumed survival of the fittest means physically fit.
Many people do assume that.
A lot of people assume that, and creationists deliberately use it to build a strawman argument against evolution.
the most adapted
Great video.
Great Video need more views
Should be "Survival of the Good Enough" not Fittest
23 AIG and CRI employees downvoted this video.
Could you make a video about non-coding DNA? I need it Stated Clearly to understand.
More people should watch this
I love this channel🤘
could you do a video explaining inclusive fitness ?
@@ThatSpazamataz Oh that's perfect, thank you for the recommendation!
We go over it in the "genes eye view" animation
Thanks man I am from India
I love this channel
Sir can make UA-cam channel which will dubb your video in Hindi ?
put more videos please
Hi there.
Can you make a video on cell signalling because you know its fundamental to every living organisms and also i want a clarity in the whole concept of it.
If you can make the video on it would be nice for every subcribers.
Thank you
I have read that 'fit' in Victorian England meant 'apt', so, as a lay person, I think of it in terms of survival of the most suited to their environment.
SURVIVAL OF THE ADAPTABLE WILL SUIT MORE
Can u please explain crossing over and segregetion of chromosomes exactly ?
Hello,
Paulogia sent me...
Thanks!
My teacher used the phrase "Survival Of The Best Fitted".
This video hits different when you are an engineering major
Do you mind explaining it to the non engineering majors
I am not that bright, so my people will just die off.
Brilliant!
Adapting to change makes to prove you are intelligent and strong.
5:34 funny as hell thanks for the laugh
"survival of the fittest" I think that is "the natural selection" being said with better words and more explained.
"any indidual bacterium you meet today had never a single ancestor die".. I did not understand that Perry... please elaborate a little.
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.
Well explained
Very well
In reference to viruses (viri?) and fellow travellers. Killing your host is generally not great for long term survival unless that's part of your life cycle like Cordiceps fungi.
Which is why a mutation which allows transfer to another species can be so devastating, as they haven't evolved to be benign.
Survival of the fit enough
It seems natural balance is working against individual evaluation instead it's working to sustain the environment
View from srilanka
Survival of the fit enough, persistence of the most prolific
Mutual Aid among Animals:
The conception of struggle for existence as a factor of evolution, introduced into science by Darwin and Wallace, has permitted us to embrace an immensely wide range of phenomena in one single generalization, which soon became the very basis of our philosophical, biological, and sociological speculations. An immense variety of facts: - adaptations of function and structure of organic beings to their surroundings; physiological and anatomical evolution; intellectual progress, and moral development itself, which we formerly used to explain by so many different causes, were embodied by Darwin in one general conception. We understood them as continued endeavours - as a struggle against adverse circumstances - for such a development of individuals, races, species and societies, as would result in the greatest possible fulness, variety, and intensity of life. It may be that at the outset Darwin himself was not fully aware of the generality of the factor which he first invoked for explaining one series only of facts relative to the accumulation of individual variations in incipient species. But he foresaw that the term which he was introducing into science would lose its philosophical and its only true meaning if it were to be used in its narrow sense only - that of a struggle between separate individuals for the sheer means of existence. And at the very beginning of his memorable work he insisted upon the term being taken in its “large and metaphorical sense including dependence of one being on another, and including (which is more important) not only the life of the individual, but success in leaving progeny." While he himself was chiefly using the term in its narrow sense for his own special purpose, he warned his followers against committing the error (which he seems once to have committed himself) of overrating its narrow meaning. In The Descent of Man he gave some powerful pages to illustrate its proper, wide sense. He pointed out how, in numberless animal societies, the struggle between separate individuals for the means of existence disappears, how struggle is replaced by co-operation, and how that substitution results in the development of intellectual and moral faculties which secure to the species the best conditions for survival. He intimated that in such cases the fittest are not the physically strongest, nor the cunningest, but those who learn to combine so as mutually to support each other, strong and weak alike, for the welfare of the community. “Those communities,” he wrote, “which included the greatest number of the most sympathetic members would flourish best, and rear the greatest number of offspring” (2nd edit., p. 163). The term, which originated from the narrow Malthusian conception of competition between each and all, thus lost its narrowness in the mind of one who knew Nature. -Pytor Kropotkin
Your voice is so soothing
Drop more
Fitness is to understanding evolution as order is to understanding entropy.
Beware the cyberbadger!
pls dont add swears
good vid tho
👍
So whoever survives they are not fittest all the time - that was actually people tend to assume about the PHRASE, you wanna place this way?
Why you stopped dude😭come
Genghis Khan happen to be a better reproducer
Can you do a video on speciation please
it's more like "elimination of the unfit" than "survival of the fittest"
1:33 This is a big question I always had. If natural selection is true then why aren't all animals generically immoral? If animal B leaves 20 years more then animal A, then animal B had a lot more chances to pass on more of her long-life genes.
You might say that immortality simply did not evolve, but steam cells exist. An animal with more steam cells has a bigger chance of staying alive for longer, therefore more chances to reproduce. Even an animal that lives 1 year longer then the other members of his species has significant more chances to have more kids then others that lives less.
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.
Mom and dad were your own worst enemies folks.
Worker bees.
You are so open minded. Just wow !
Survival of the fittest, the world's most enduring tautology.
(Env ---> change) = effect the person(s) DNA
Quao bem um organismo se reproduz ou passa seus genes
the forest whale really speaks to me
❤❤
❣
That was clear
Somewhere (I don't recall where) I read "survival of the fittest" reframed as "survival of the most able to adapt" which seems to apply here to some degree.
I'd love to read other people's takes on that.
I like the adaptability take on it, because it also seems to apply on an individual level as well, to behaviour and not just genetics.
For example: I am a 5th generation cod fisherman, therefore I will keep fishing for cod even though there are not enough, and not earn enough to survive on.
Or on a larger social scale, for example responding appropriately to climate change: Economic growth is a must, therefore we will continue on as we were and disregard the very clear signs that we must adapt to the world around us.
Adapt or perish.
Changing the problem with the word "fittest" to the problem with the word "adapt."
I hate when people say “those which happen to be better reproducers tend to reproduce better.” It’s not giving any criteria whatsoever and is redundant. I think we need to escape the idea of “survival of the this,” or “survival of the that,” and recognize that there’s no end all be all that it all comes down to. Rather, it’s circumstantial to the environment and species. And, there’s several different criteria that can make an individual more likely to survive and reproduce within their environment(size, shape, color, hairiness, mass, texture, number of this or that body part, exedra).
How about natural balance how it's works with natural evaluation and natural selection, we know now that the animals like wolf are contributing very effectively in the survival of the trees thus surviving other animals like deers.!!!
"Reproduction is difficult if you happen to be dead" I don't know where and for what purpose I'm going to use this phrase, but you can bet will somehow.
4:20: How can you define who is a better reproducer absent their actual (past) reproduction success? Is there any way? Can 'nature' detect such a way by some natural means? Or is it that we assume that those who have reproduced well therefore must have been better reproducers? Although, I suppose that with descent with variation there must be a fact of the matter about differential reproductive ability. I'm just wondering if that really tells us anything about what we see. I mean, isn't it a truism that that which can reproduce does, while that which can't, doesn't?
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.
28.10.2023