Vitology and Evolutionary Theory: Fitness, Natural Selection, Adaptation, and Viability

This article compares Vitology with evolutionary theory in order to separate established evolutionary knowledge from a possible residual contribution of the Vitological research program. Natural selection, evolutionary fitness, differential survival and reproduction, life-history strategies, intergenerational trade-offs, long-term geometric fitness, kin selection, evolutionary rescue, phenotypic plasticity, and multilevel evolutionary processes are identified as established scientific content rather than independent Vitological novelty. Particular attention is given to the distinction between evolutionary fitness and Vitological viability. Evolutionary fitness characterizes, within a defined evolutionary model, the contribution of a heritable variant, genotype, organism, or other specified evolutionary unit to subsequent generations or population dynamics. Vitological viability is directed toward measurement of the current state and trajectory of a particular system with respect to preservation of critical functions, recovery, adaptive capacity, reserves, viability boundaries, and future viable states. These coordinates may be related but should not be treated as identical. Survival is already an established component of evolutionary fitness, and the term viability selection has long been used in population genetics. Vitology therefore cannot claim priority for relating survival to selection. The possible residual contribution of H5 is formulated more narrowly: whether multidimensional viability metrology provides reproducible information about state, recovery, reserves, and future system trajectory beyond strong models of evolutionary fitness, demography, life history, ecology, and selection. The article introduces the candidate constructs of Viability–Fitness Divergence and the Viability–Fitness Coupling Profile. Eight testable hypotheses H5-1–H5-8 are formulated. The strongest requires that prospectively operationalized Vitological variables improve predictive performance beyond the strongest available evolutionary model on independent data. Keywords Vitology; viability; evolutionary theory; natural selection; evolutionary fitness; adaptation; survival; reproduction; life history; evolutionary rescue; long-term dynamics; multilevel dynamics; viability trajectory; cross-domain metrology.

Authors

Publication Details

Journal
Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)
Published
2026-08-26
DOI
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.22117950
Primary Topic
Genetics and Physical Performance
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Vitology and Evolutionary Theory: Fitness, Natural Selection, Adaptation, and Viability

Serhii Hostiunin
Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)
Genetics and Physical Performance
article

Vitology and Evolutionary Theory: Fitness, Natural Selection, Adaptation, and Viability

Serhii Hostiunin
article en

Abstract

This article compares Vitology with evolutionary theory in order to separate established evolutionary knowledge from a possible residual contribution of the Vitological research program. Natural selection, evolutionary fitness, differential survival and reproduction, life-history strategies, intergenerational trade-offs, long-term geometric fitness, kin selection, evolutionary rescue, phenotypic plasticity, and multilevel evolutionary processes are identified as established scientific content rather than independent Vitological novelty. Particular attention is given to the distinction between evolutionary fitness and Vitological viability. Evolutionary fitness characterizes, within a defined evolutionary model, the contribution of a heritable variant, genotype, organism, or other specified evolutionary unit to subsequent generations or population dynamics. Vitological viability is directed toward measurement of the current state and trajectory of a particular system with respect to preservation of critical functions, recovery, adaptive capacity, reserves, viability boundaries, and future viable states. These coordinates may be related but should not be treated as identical. Survival is already an established component of evolutionary fitness, and the term viability selection has long been used in population genetics. Vitology therefore cannot claim priority for relating survival to selection. The possible residual contribution of H5 is formulated more narrowly: whether multidimensional viability metrology provides reproducible information about state, recovery, reserves, and future system trajectory beyond strong models of evolutionary fitness, demography, life history, ecology, and selection. The article introduces the candidate constructs of Viability–Fitness Divergence and the Viability–Fitness Coupling Profile. Eight testable hypotheses H5-1–H5-8 are formulated. The strongest requires that prospectively operationalized Vitological variables improve predictive performance beyond the strongest available evolutionary model on independent data. Keywords Vitology; viability; evolutionary theory; natural selection; evolutionary fitness; adaptation; survival; reproduction; life history; evolutionary rescue; long-term dynamics; multilevel dynamics; viability trajectory; cross-domain metrology.

Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)
Openalex Percentile: Top 10%
Genetics and Physical Performance
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.