[Nebullis]

I give the comparison simply to point out that the attribution of success requires more than pointing out the single act of a de facto survivor.

Of course. (The 'duh!' was inappropriately placed.) This study measures the difference between adaptive survivors and survivors in general.

Measures of sufficiency, fitness value, and the success of adaptive changes in terms of functionality does not give much new information beyond the mere change that has been observed. In light of that, I find some sympathy for the smart aleck who replied, "duh!" although I do hope the poster has read his Hume.

Substitutions or changes in amino acids which confer a functional change on the protein are considered adaptive if they accumulate in the population faster than changes which confer no functional effects. Deleterious changes are quickly deleted from a population and neutral changes are carried along without special advantage. This isn't simply measuring functional changes which survive. This is measuring changes which spread faster through the population than all other changes which survive. By definition these confer a selective advantage.

[cornelis]

Since a battle can be considered a single act, I hope I wasn't being to presumptions in using the indefinite singular ("survivor") to the gene(s) which accumulate(s) in rapid evolution. This, too, is colloquially referred to as the survival of the fittest.