Because there is a large body of evidence to support it.
It's apt enough.
Survival of the fittest / natural selection
natural selection
Well, scientists, for starters. And most higher educated people. And a good portion of the general populace as well. People who don't accept natural selection generally reject it because they don't know or understand what it is, or because they don't want to know what it is for religious reasons.
I already had a good grasp of geology and paleontology when I carefully read Charles Darwin's The Evolution of Species. I studied his conclusions, how he arrived at them and what methodologies he used, and was interested in his collaboration with other scientists and with breeders. I have read extensively the reviews and publications by supporters and opponents of Darwin's Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection - including a number of Creationist authors.I have absolutely no doubt that Darwin was right in his understanding of the evolution of species.
Actually, it was Lamarck who earlier introduced the giraffe as an example for evolution - Lamarckian evolution, to be sure. Lamarck proposed that there was some mechanism by which the short-necked ancestors of giraffes could acquire a change such that their offspring would have necks better suited to their needs. Darwin applied natural selection to the same example mainly because it had already been discussed in such detail.
Natural selection doesn't reduce variation. Variation is regulated by the rate of mutation.Natural selection reduces the chance of bad variation from being passed on and increases the chances for good variation to be passed on.
They didn't. What you are speaking of is called social Darwinism and it should have been called social Spencerism because Herbert Spencer mistakenly applied the theory of evolution by natural selection to social theory and thus committed the naturalistic fallacy and Lamarckism at the same time. Just because something is natural does not mean it is good and how this " superior " social class viewed hereditary was straight out of Lamarck. Darwin wanted nothing to do with this mistaken notion.
Natural selection and really good traits.
i only know which detracted from Darwin's theory. It was his research in genetics. At Darwin's time, people believed that if someone was to have a burned ear, or his arm fell off, their offspring might have a missing arm or burned ear when born. As we know now, that is completely false, since we still carry the "good gene" (most of the time) and that there are actually things that prevent and fix cell mutations
prity much sumed up is that if you have good genes you survive and if you have bad genes you don't.
A population is different after natural selection because some of the negative genes have been weeded out. By experiencing natural selection things like obesity, weakness, and disease will be cut from the genetic pool (after many generations of coarse). Take a look at the Nam family to get a good example of this.