The term "fittest" is not actually "fittest to survive" but rather "fittest to survive long enough to reproduce". If one animal lives 20 years, but has 15 offspring, and another lives on 5 years, but manages to have 50 offspring, the latter example would be considered fore "fit" by the standards of Darwin's statement.
It's clear the hippo would win a fight, since they have gigantic mouths, sharp teeth and are literally built like a tank. But the gorilla is too smart to fight a hippo, it would run to safety and pelt it from a tree with rocks. Survival of the fittest isn't always correct - most of the time survival of the smartest is actually the case, and in this circumstance, the gorilla is the smartest.
Herbert Spencer's idea of "survival of the fittest" refers to the concept that individuals or groups best adapted to their environment are more likely to survive and reproduce. He applied this idea to social and economic contexts, suggesting that competition among individuals in society would lead to social progress. Spencer's views were foundational to social Darwinism, which often misapplied biological concepts to justify social inequalities. His perspective emphasized the importance of adaptation and competition in both nature and human society.
Sam Birch or bam sirch contact: 08birchs@dronfield.derbyshire.sch.uk
That species would have it's best chance of survival as a result of a mutation that has a high adaptive value that occurs in its gametes.
Survival of the fittest
These tigers will now demonstrate what survival of the fittest really means.
Survival of the fittest means that the healthiest, most fit, most powerful animals survive.Though the phrase "survival of the fittest" began from scientists studying animal behavior, it was quickly adopted to describe human behavior and obstacles humans face.Technically, applying the definition of survival of the fittest to human situations, it would mean no one disabled would 'survive'. However, this is a myth that disabled persons are less able or deserving to survive.Many powerful people, such as those with high incomes, often use the excuse "survival of the fittest" to defend how they treat other people unfairly in business transactions."Survival of the fittest" is merely a metaphor and theory, not necessarily fact, though many people have come to believe it is always a fact.
Nature is about survival of the fittest. So if it had to, then yes.
If you mean the theory of evolution and the survival of the fittest: That would be Charles Darwin.
Survival of the fittest would be used to describe this situation.
Be careful with this, it is usually misinterpreted as survival of fittest individuals. Instead it is survival of fittest population via death of some individuals early. Individuals never evolve, they are fixed genetic snapshots in the movie of life, they simply live or die. Populations evolve.
Herbert Spencer is the social Darwinist who coined the phrase "survival of the fittest" and applied it to capitalist societies. He believed that competition in the market would lead to the strongest individuals and businesses thriving while the weak would perish.
The term "fittest" is not actually "fittest to survive" but rather "fittest to survive long enough to reproduce". If one animal lives 20 years, but has 15 offspring, and another lives on 5 years, but manages to have 50 offspring, the latter example would be considered fore "fit" by the standards of Darwin's statement.
Survival of the fittest meant that be best businessmen would survive. The working out of the law of nature and the law of God meant respecting our surroundings and acting ethically. This is what JD Rockefeller was referring to when he was talking about business.
I don't think there are many animals who would even want to mess with them. Would YOU? Anyway I think they just have a fight to the death. Survival of the fittest, right?
Survival of the fittest, i think if a virus could kill all of mankind it would have happened, or 2012 will answer this.