The theory of Natural Selection promotes that the species that survives is the fittest, and the fittest is the species that survives. What does Natural Selection identify as the determining factor of the survival of the fittest? Whatever gave the surviving form the edge over the extinct one is the determining factor. Since Natural Selection has become an all-purpose explanation of anything and everything, it becomes an explanation of nothing. Just about any characteristic can be either advantageous or disadvantageous depending upon the surrounding environmental conditions the subject is found.Fitness is the quantitative representation of natural and selective selection within evolutionary biology. It applies to either a genotype or a phenotype in a given environment. It describes individual reproductive success and is equal to the average contribution to the gene pool of the next generation that is made by the individuals of the specific genotype or phenotype.
Based on the species thriving we can assume a characteristic to be advantageous to it, but in most cases, it is impossible to identify the advantage independently of the outcome; therefore any advantage can also be a disadvantage. Simply put, the historical record only confirms one advantage, success in reproduction. Following Natural Selection, the individual who reproduces the most offspring must have the qualities required for producing the most offspring, or the fittest individuals in a population [identified as these which leave the most offspring] will leave the most offspring.
Here is the kicker, in any population, there will be individuals leaving more offspring than others, even if the population is not changing or if the population is headed for extinction. The fossil record does not record any change as being advantageous and determining the survival of the mutating sample and neither could Darwin point to any impressive example of natural selection in process. Therefore Natural Selection is nothing more than a hypothesis void of experimental or observational confirmation. So when I ask how a fish can become a man, I am not impressed when the evolutionist points to Natural Selection, knowing that the species that leaves the most offspring is the one that leaves the most offspring. The only choice is to accept Natural Selection by blind faith not reason.
I love the highlighted portion. I present science, logic, and reason and you present your blind faith and then ask if my faith is threatened. No, my faith is backed up by science, logic, and reason. Yours lacks miserably.You should note that fitness ( w ) is a probability rather than an actual number of offspring. It is a property of a class of individuals for example- homozygous for alleles at a particular locus.
Here is a selection from the surprisingly good Wiki entry on Fitness (biology) I'm sure that it will make this concept abundantly clear to you. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitness_(biology) I did try to copy and paste, but the formatting was too complex. I'm sure that you are capable of following the link.
Assuming that you have read the above with honesty and humility, I'm sure that you will realise that your comments here are ridiculous. If on the other hand you feel your faith is threatened by truth, as heretofore, then you will learn nothing, ignore what is said to you, hide in a darkened room for a while, then emerge to spout the same nonsense over again.