You've heard Natural Selection described as 'the survival of the fittest'? Of course! But it ain't so.
The fittest! The fittest, the very bestest fit of all the fits there could be? How do you measure that? It is completely unparameterised and given the variability of ecological communities and their change over time, is unparameterisable. The fitest is the most fit possible in all relevant circumstances. Not even the second most fit which is one 'fitette' less fit than the most fit gets a guernsey.
Rubbish.
The roulette wheel of natural selection means at worst survival of the luckiest (but even that contains an implicit teleology and is a hindsight evaluation), and at best, the survival of the least unfit at the time and place in the conditions that prevail on the day.
In the end, all one can say is that what survives is that which has survived. It is a meaningless 'go nowhere' concept.
It only means that the characteristics that only and expressely benefit bare survival are important...so fruit could be slightly less delicious to an animal, and it would probably have insufficient selectability to be selected out; this might or might not relate to survival fitness, but we find that fruit is just so delicious! And so on. For everything. What about human thought, art, technology? Not essentail for bare survival, so comparatively not selected for: all are the mere result of the least best fit surviving. Its like public works: the least costly gets the job with the lowest tender.
