Evolution responses

I don't mean to offend anyone who may read this, but I'm gonna play Devil's Advocate for a bit.
Some people have put out posts on the evolution readings that I would like to challenge.
As far as natural selection goes, wouldn't "survival of the fittest" refer to everything and anything that makes it easier for your species to survive? Just because it says "fittest" doesn't mean that it refers to strength or size, it refers to how "fit" you are in a given situation. One mutation could cause a physically strong organism to develop something that makes it more "fit" in social interactions with the opposite gender, thereby making it the "fittest" to survive and pass on genetic material. In short, both strength (or agility, hardiness, etc...) and sexual attraction play equal parts in the scheme of natural selection.
Next, while no one has posted about this yet but I know someone will, a "mutation" is not bad. That word has recieved very bad press in recent years and nowadays we take it as meaning something that makes us a freak or grow a third arm, etc... A mutation is any genetic change, good or bad. Whether or not it halps us survive determines the "good" or "bad" part.
Third, as far as the native american children going to schools and losing awareness of the "natural" world, that is a cultural change and has nothing to do with genetics. Cultures adapt, like genetics, in order to meet new challenges of life, but they are not caused by anything genetic; though it can be argued that a cultural change has brought a genetic change. As a nice little side note, the perception of what is a "freak" is determined by your culture.
Finally, I do not support prolonging life through medical advances in certain situations. For example cancer, mental diseases, brain damage, or certain diseases like down syndrome or most forms of mental retardation. Remember, I don't mean to offend, I just don't think it's a good idea. Allowing our weak, diseased members of the species survive is not an efficient system for survival, even in an urban world. It wastes resources and money keeping people alive when they should by all natural means be dead. People may say "that's not fair," because that person "didn't get a chance to live," but that isn't the way the world works. It isn't fair. It isnt right. It doesn't care if you loved them or hated them. It doesn't care if you "didnt get a chance". Sometimes it doesn't give you a chance to begin with. But we have to move on and accept that thats the way it is, changing it won't necessarily make it better and if we allow the weak and stupid (not necessarily retarded, just stupid) to breed then we will lose what evolutionary progress we have managed to gain.
If anyone would like to discuss any of these issues further, I would be happy to respond.

Ryan Casto