First, just for the record, Darwin did not originate the term “survival of the fittest” -- that was introduced over a decade later.
But the main point is that at any given time there are probably thousands, or tens of thousands of adaptations competing against the environment for survival. Everything from skin color to brain size, lung capacity and hair form to those little chemical and enzymatic changes deep in the body. To summarize this as “survival of the fittest,” where fittest is interpreted as strongest (bloody in tooth and claw), is both incorrect and totally misleading.
Lets do an example; in the Mediterranean the skin color is kind of medium, supplemented by tanning ability. That ability to change skin color seasonally lets folks absorb more vitamin D in the winter, yet avoid most of the ultraviolet rays during the summer. Pretty good adaptation, eh? Folks to the north have lighter skin, while folks to the south have darker skin. Which is "fittest?"
Now multiply this by perhaps a thousand traits.
And realize that many traits will work contrary to others. Larger brain sizes mean more difficult births, for example. Sickle-cell anemia is no fun, but it conveys some resistance to malaria.
Its a very complicated subject, and one which we are only beginning to understand. But your comment...
There was enough of the eugenicist in him already for him to be losing any sleep over such matters as the suffering of his fellow human beings. “Nature is bloody in tooth and claw.” And his theory dictates that “the best men win” in the end anyway. And isn’t that “good?”...just tries to make a mockery of it all through not understanding the science involved and wishing to discredit Darwin and Darwinism in any way possible.
And isn’t that “good?” No, boys and girls. That isn't good.
Yes; that was Spenser. But Darwin evidently thought the term most felicitous as a description of his theory, for he said so at the time.
The statement that nature is "bloody in tooth and claw" is, as I recall, a direct quote from Darwin on the occasion of his presentation of his theory to the Linnean Society of London in 1859 (IIRC).
Darwinian evolution theory may have some highly vauable insights; in fact, I believe it does. But as you know, I do have reservations (principally WRT to its insistence on random development, which seems to be a fundamental article of its faith). Also I think it is unfortunate that the theory has been highjacked by any number of social and political progressives, not to mention it is association in the public mind with some kind of a "proof" of the non-existence of God. To my mind, these are its defects.
Plus I resent how Neo-Darwinists today seem to want to just "shut down the debate," and penalize all "apostates." The recent Sternberg debacle at the Smithsonian is a case in point.
Thank you for writing, Coyoteman!