Do you believe in the survival of the fittest or the strong?

The fitter is a kind of strong. Edward O. Wilson, in Genes, Mind, and Culture: The Process of CoEvolution, argues that there are powerful impediments to the development of higher cognitive functions, and that for most species the benefit function is always enhanced by the implementation of a single evolutionary strategy. Humans, on the other hand, experience enough contingencies, as evidenced by the explosion of brain size (see my article). The surge in brain volume reflects an increase in neurons, which i

s part of the development of higher cognitive functions. In other words, human ability is the result of a large number of contingents, whereas most animals in nature are able to adapt to the existing environment and evolve the variation once and for all, and then only need to increase t

he scale of the variation. When higher cognitive functions have begun to take shape, gene-culture transmission (gene-culture amplification) comes into play, resulting in intense evolutionary pressure on the genes i

nvolved. In short, the difference between the fitter and the stronger, I think, can be likened to the human species and the general species. Humans are resilient,Nature is more about survival of the fittest. Colloquially, if you stay, you win.

A typical example. The ancestors of scorpions were among the first creatures to migrate from the sea to land. Obviously, this is a very lowly animal. However, it represented cold-blooded animals, or now more commonly known as ectotherms. Because of their very low metabolic rate, they are better able to withstand extreme environments than most mammals and birds.

As for simpler organisms, they thrive even more.Human evolution, on the other hand, is the most unnatural of allBecause the brain is very calorically intensive, even if you put it on standby. So the vast majority of mammals and birds prefer to have certain parts of their limbs spDarwin's survival of the fittest explains the natural world, but it does not explain the rise of man, because he has no absolute advantage in the natural world. But there was a very important factor in the rise of the human race. We went from genetic evolution to imaginative evolution, and we learned to use tools. So the other hypothesis, the Red Queen hypothesis, is that absolute dominance is not an adaptation to the current environment, but an evolution beyond the possibilities of other species. This explains why geniuses appear. Genius sees the world objectively, not as evolving for survival. The Chinese believe in Darwinism, this is not a good thing, on the one hand, the poor to get compression, on the one hand, evolutionary possibilities, exam-oriented education is this deformity, and parents idea also so, it is difficult to give imagination evolved a sunshine avenue, that is dangerous, although also so in the United States, but the critical scholars. There may not be a major crisis at the moment, but it is hard to say for the future. This is a national problem, not a matter of government, and a negative factor for communism. Truth is in the hands of a few, and the people are just there to eat. I hope you can change your mind when you read thisecialized. For example, run faster, fly higher, have sharp teeth, good at climbing, swimming, diving and so on. At the same time, the requirements for brain development have always been less. So even though dinosaurs ruled the world for 100 million years, their brain capacity was very limited. whereas other species are not.That is to say, the fittest are always strong, because they can survive in a certain environment. But the strong are not necessarily the fit. Because only the fitter, then in another environment, it may not adapt, that is to say, the survival of the fitter has environmental preference. But the strong can adapt quickly in order to survive, as if the fitter is learned, and the strong is wise.