I watch a video that
@Revoltingest posted and after I finished, I let the next video come up and it was crazy drivers. Then, when that was finished, it was Karens gone wild. Then videos of police stopping people for no apparent reason. It just kept escalating and before I knew it, I had been watching this stuff for hours.
I understand. I've enjoyed watching multiple bad behavior compilations - "Karens" on airplanes, in airports, in fast food and convenience stores. They're like car wrecks one can't turn away from.
Also, the videos with the guy who glitters porch pirates (search parameters: "glitters porch pirates"):
And the IT whizzes who exact revenge on scammers:
And, Patty Mayo's bail bondsmen videos
the mere ability to have a lot of offspring does not reproduce ones genes.
Sure it does, and nothing else does that.
Of course competition is About death. What tends to make individuals sexually attractive is just robust good health. Obviously many factors apply as well as mere availability. Good nests, the best territory, brightest colors, most free time, almost anything goes into selection. Never are dead mates considered.
So you describe the competition to generate life in terms of death even though nothing need be killed for a gene to ascend to prominence in a gene pool. Potential mates don't need to be dead to be rejected. Pick a living but sterile one and the outcome is the same.
it's a circular argument.
I wrote, "We call the winners the fittest however they won." It's not an argument or a claim. It's a definition. The claim in the context of biology is that natural selection applied to genetic variation in living populations over generations results in biological evolution. That's what winning means in this context and how it manifests.