birch:
it's pretty obvious that the fittest do not always end up with the most power as it does in the lower animal kingdom.
The theory of evolution doesn't say anything about the fittest ending up with the most power.
In the context of evolution, "fittest" only means "best adapted to the environment", or something like that. Moreover, the theory does not deal in absolutes on the individual level. Accidents happen. Even the strongest can be cut down by chance events. It doesn't matter how "fit" you are if you're buried in a landslide or if a tree falls on you. The theory deals in averages.
for example, there are no hospitals to go to if an animal nibbles on the wrong plant but dies and out of the gene pool but a human that eats the wrong mushroom because they are an idiot who has no precaution will be rushed to the emergency room and their stomach pumped so can continue to pass on their dumb genes.
This just goes to show you that the measure of "fitness" depends very much on the environment. If you happen to live in an environment that has emergency rooms and good medical care, then your innate immunity to mushrooms might not matter much when it comes to measures of "fitness" and your likelihood of surviving, compared to other human beings. Compared to other animals, the fact that human beings have good medical care does, indeed, make them more "fit". This is one reason why there are so many more human beings on the planet than any other large mammal.
if the absolute fittest which denotes the best always end up with the most power, trump would not be president, would he? lmao.
Evolution is not about who becomes President. It is concerned with who survives long enough to pass on their genes to the next generation. Trump has already passed his on, by the way, so evolutionarily speaking he is doing okay.
Having said that, I should emphasise that, in terms of outcomes, evolution is not interested in individuals. The theory concerns what happens to species, first and foremost. However, the mechanisms of natural selection do work at the individual level, mostly, and species are ultimately made up of individuals.
in human societies, the concept of darwinian evolution can even be turned on it's head and it often does. for instance, usually the strongest sacrifice for the weakest whereas in the lower animal kingdom, it's usually the opposite.
There is a lot of discussion about the evolutionary benefits of altruism in the literature.
When you're talking about "sacrifice", it depends on what you actually mean. Sacrifice has degrees. For example, if a millionaire gives a small portion of his income to charity, that is a "sacrifice" that he doesn't have to make. However, looking at it from a purely selfish perspective, giving a small amount of money away might make people admire him more, which might lead to greater reproductive opportunities for him. And the required "sacrifice" in this case is small. Note: I'm not saying that self-interest is why people give to charity, as a general proposition. The millionaire might have the purest of intentions, but he might still benefit, nonetheless. And, evolutionarily speaking, if
he benefits, then his genes might benefit also, and
that is what counts towards his evolutionary "fitness".
The biggest sacrifice one can make is to give one's own life for the sake of another.
That kind of sacrifice is rare, which is why we tend to notice it when it happens. Evolutionarily speaking, if you end your own life then your chance to further pass on your genes goes to zero, so there had better be a very good reason to do it. If a mother were to give her life to save two of her children, for example, evolutionarily speaking that would be unremarkable, because the children each carry half of the mother's genes. On the other hand, sacrificing yourself for complete strangers is rare, because it does nothing to advance the interests of your own genes.
for example, that stepfather pedophiliac scum evaded the vietnam draft. oh, he survived alright and produced offspring and is alive and well. he even collects 100 percent veteran disability for an injury that is completely not related to military service at all but just because it occurred during service. ....
his two biological kids are doing better than me. wow, evolution sure is stellar. lol
Did he have the biological kids after avoiding the draft, or before? If after, then by avoiding the draft he was "successful" from an evolutionary perspective. It would have been no good for his genes to die in Vietnam.
What this goes to show is that evolution doesn't "care" about morality. The "fittest", in evolutionary terms, are not necessarily the most worthy, or the most moral, or the smartest, or the kindest. "Fittest" is determined by the environment.
If you think that evolution ought to be "nice" to nice people, then you're thinking about evolution the wrong way.
i already know the truth. i don't need another's interpretation because it sure isn't the best, fittest or the most intelligent that are the only or even majority winners in human societies.
Again, it depends what you mean by "fittest". In evolution, fitness is
only measured by how successful you are at passing on your genes, ultimately. Lots of things can make you more or less "fit" in those terms.