(December 2, 2017 at 3:47 am)Aroura Wrote: It is indeed interesting how fittest does not necessarily mean strongest. It is a huge misnomer of evolution anyway. Biologists don't use it, because it doesn't accurately cover the complexity of natural selection.
I saw some wildlife show about cuttlefish, that showed that the smallest males were often the most successful at mating. The big males would be all puffed up, occupied with keeping other males away from a female they had claimed but had yet to mate with. The small males would disguise themselves a females, sneak by the big puffed up guy, and have sex with his female.
I was like, you go little dudes!
BINGO! ^^^^^^^^^^^^
And even in humans, you don't have to be 100% healthy to mate and produce offspring. You don't have to be the strongest, all you have to do is get to the point of reproduction.
It has never been about brawn alone, brawn is merely ONE attribute, but not always the most important. Tactics matter too, and and brains and even nurture and trickery are also attributes. There is more than one attribute to evolution and none are more important than the other.
