Graduate studies at Western
Acta Biotheoretica 47 (2) (1999)
|Abstract||The effects of natural selection as a process in natural populations differs from ''survival of the fittest'' as it was formulated by Darwin in his ''Origin of Species''. The environment of a population exists of continuous changing conditions, which are heterogeneous in space. During its life each individual successively meets with differing conditions. During these confrontations the individual may appear to be ''unfit'' or ''unlucky'' and may die. If it survives it will meet the following conditions to which it is ''tested'' anew, a.s.o. Hence, many individuals being less fit under certain conditions will survive and reproduce, because they did not meet a deadly moment. Therefore, being ''fit'' only refers to special prevalent conditions. In each generation the individuals thus being ''unfit'' will be eliminated together with the ''unlucky'' ones. All other individuals will survive and reproduce, notwithstanding their properties.Hence, natural selection results in the ''non-survival of the non-fit'' rather than in ''survival of the fittest'', because being ''fit'' simply means ''having survived and reproduced'', whereas being ''unfit'' can be connected with many kinds of properties and environmental conditions, e.g. being killed by a predator. Only after many generations (hundreds or even thousands) the effect of eventually dominating properties of the survivors may result in a set of properties suggesting an overall ''survival of the fittest''. This was what Darwin wanted to explain as he was mainly interested in evolutionary processes.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Peter Lamarque (2002). Work and Object. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 102 (2):141–162.
Karen Neander (1995). Pruning the Tree of Life. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 46 (1):59-80.
Alfons Schuster & Yoko Yamaguchi (2009). The Survival of the Fittest and the Reign of the Most Robust: In Biology and Elsewhere. [REVIEW] Minds and Machines 19 (3):361-389.
Armando Aranda-Anzaldo (2001). Cancer Development and Progression: A Non-Adaptive Process Driven by Genetic Drift. Acta Biotheoretica 49 (2).
Wim J. van der Steen (1998). Methodological Problems in Evolutionary Biology. X. Natural Selection Without Selective Agents. Acta Biotheoretica 46 (2).
D. M. Walsh (2004). Bookkeeping or Metaphysics? The Units of Selection Debate. Synthese 138 (3):337 - 361.
Denis M. Walsh (2003). Fit and Diversity: Explaining Adaptive Evolution. Philosophy of Science 70 (2):280-301.
Stuart Glennan (2009). Productivity, Relevance and Natural Selection. Biology and Philosophy 24 (3):325-339.
C. Kenneth Waters (1986). Natural Selection Without Survival of the Fittest. Biology and Philosophy 1 (2):207-225.
David B. Resnik (1988). Survival of the Fittest: Law of Evolution or Law of Probability? [REVIEW] Biology and Philosophy 3 (3):349-362.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads5 ( #170,177 of 739,352 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #61,538 of 739,352 )
How can I increase my downloads?