@knor Kai, thank you for your response. However, I have some problems with it.
You are correct to identify Thomas Malthus with the origin of survival of the fittest, but you fail to identify the research which is responsible for any changes of this important concept. I am not questioning your word, but as you know science is based on verified facts. I have been looking for verification of any changes in the survival of the fittest in the literature and have found none.
Does science deal with real life or not? If the science of evolution deals with real life, then human morality must take it into consideration. If not then it is bogus. Irresponsible statements such as this lower respect for science.
In any case people use “science” to justify their morality, and science has a responsibility to speak if this is not good science.
It has been pointed out that once at long time ago hominins were are a crossroads. The climate was becoming drier. The forest was becoming the savanna and their diet of fruits and seeds was becoming more scarce and hard to eat.
One branch of hominins adapted by making its teeth bigger and its jaw stronger, so it could better eat the seeds and nuts available. These are called Robust hominins, panthopus bosei. Another branch did not develop their teeth and jaws, but its mind so it could improve its diet by hunting and cooking their food. These were our ancestors homo habilis.
Why did one branch succeed and the other die out? You don’t think it matters why we are the way we are?
This is very true. One is fit on respect to one’s environment. In fact fitness should not be defined as having the right genes, but being well adapted to the environment… Non-avian dinosaurs died out because the climate changed and their food died out.
We need to understand how evolution works because the climate is changing rapidly and our habitat is coming under very great stress. The old system does not cut it.