Natural selection, yes; evolution, no, Part One

The definition of the "fittest" individuals makes the notion of natural selection true based on circular reasoning. The fittest are the ones that survive and you can tell which are the fittest by seeing which one survive. (The fact that survival of the fittest is based on circular reasoning does not necessarily mean that the idea is false.) Fitness is controlled by many factors that allow the organism to survive and reproduce. The fastest zebra may be deaf and have a poor sense of smell. This combination would tend to eliminate his genes from a population. The only way to understand fitness is to study the first generation and then track the presence of those traits through time as successive generations are born.

Numerical values can be used to represent the fitness of individuals based on the ratio of individuals with different traits. These numbers can explain fitness, but they have no predictive power-you can only determine the fittest after they survive. Mice that hold still to avoid being seen by a soaring hawk are better able to survive, except when it is safer to run to their burrows to avoid being eaten-each may provide an advantage. If the fact that the survivors survived is used to prove evolution, the circular reasoning becomes a logic problem.

Another misconception is that the fittest variety must be increasing in number. Natural selection can still be acting on a population as its number are declining. There is no direction implied in natural selection-you can be the highest scorer (most fit) on the losing team. Competition happens between species (interspecific competition), but natural selection acts within species (intraspecific competition). The struggle for survival is not between lions and zebras, it is within the zebra population. This intraspecific struggle allows for change within kinds, but not from one kind to another.

GIF Link https://giphy.com/gifs/nature-Q5us4S2RVhKcSG1zR3