It is simply a statement made from an observation. All things being equal, those most adapted to a particular environmental niche will most likely survive long enough to pass their genes along because they have an advantage over those not so well adapted. There is no "purpose or destination" stated. What would be the alternative? Survival of the least fit? Survival of everything? Neither of these are borne out by observation.
It is simply a statement made from an observation. All things being equal, those most adapted to a particular environmental niche will most likely survive long enough to pass their genes along because they have an advantage over those not so well adapted.
No, it is more than that, it is a prediction upon which the theory of natural selection and evolution itself is based on. Without survival of the fittest there would be no selection, all traits would survive with equal probability.
Survival of the fittest is incorrect on the ground that Malthusian theory has been proven to be completely false, humans are able through intelligence to increase their food supply (and let it be noted that Darwin applied natural selection to humans). In addition, the tremendous bounty of nature which is visible everywhere shows quite well that there is even now a vast amount of food available for a greater population of species besides humans. If this were not enough, as any farmer (and even people who grow plants at home) can tell you, plants restrict their size according to how closely they are planted. So there is no struggle, no destruction, no death necessary as Darwin and his followers ignorantly and incorrectly propose.