[zmgsabst]

Darwin’s theory is that the diversity of life, the nested hierarchy of traits noted by taxonomists before him, can be explained by that fact about replicating systems — and doesn’t require more than that and mutation.

Darwin explained an open question (“why do taxonomies look like this?”) by relating it to fitness and to trait changes via artificial selection (eg, breeding horses and dogs). That’s why it’s about how finches developed traits in nature — because repeated fitness selection in nature like farmers breeding lineages could account for differences in animals.

That the “fit survive” isn’t the theory — just a fact about the world.

[leereeves]

> That the “fit survive” isn’t the theory — just a fact about the world.

In Darwin's time the idea that "the fit survive" was very much a theory.

A competing idea that we might call "the just survive" was the basis of trial by ordeal and trial by combat, of prayers for healing and rescue, and of holy wars. Many people still believe that God chooses who survives, and thus do not accept survival of the fittest.

[SnowHill9902]

“Survival of the fittest” is a statistical observation of a population ensemble. You can be otherwise fit and eager to replicate and be hit by a truck. Or you can be sick and almost infertile but got someone pregnant. So Darwin doesn’t explain the human condition and why the just might fall due to sickness or the wicked become rich and prolific. That only Heaven knows.

[bluefirebrand]

> So Darwin doesn’t explain the human condition and why the just might fall due to sickness or the wicked become rich and prolific

You're changing the measure. Just-ness is not a measure of Fit-ness. Nor is Wicked-ness a measure of Unfit-ness.

[SnowHill9902]

I’m saying that “survival of the fittest” and the existence of God can coexist.