And how would the new traits seem to be trustworthy for all the other individual beings of that species, who probably might easily for their own survival feel a need to counteract that new trait that could be superior were it more ordinary. Also, in other ways, why would survival of the fittest not imply that the winners are those who eliminate competition, by whatever methods - not at all necessarily fair play!
The answer, I feel, must be that there needs to be some instinct or instincts for actually surviving as a trait. It is seemingly (for me at least) impossible for the traits to survive if they cannot be learned by other individuals of that species - and at best of other species as well.The learners of this new trait might have an inability to handle it as easily as the first one to come up with it, which might mean that they rely on this individual being and therefore support its, his or her survival, for the sake of being able to handle the trait well enough for it to support their own survival.
So if you should come up with a new trait, then that trait is to be viewed as good by the environment, or they are likely to reject it, and perhaps you with it. Although this seems, perhaps, to pertain only to none-human creatures or so, it is rather unlikely that there could not be (at least) subconscious rejections of that kind even long humans - and similarly among all other kinds of creatures too! It is not possible, per se (is it?), to survive without adaptivity and thereby there are not any means of trying to resist all possible traits that might come up, usually. However, in (oftentimes more or less hiddenly) dogmatic societies, there are clues to having there seem to be nothing for others either in that trait. ...
Either way, survival of the fittest includes the virtue of good ability to do for others what one does for oneself. This is partly what the concept of oneness is about.
I believe the neanderthals would have beat us sapiens in being human if it were not for that oneness was better in the humans! That is, due to some sapiens humans at the time, there was smarter adaption and taking after the abilities of the neanderthals, by supporting their beings enough to learn from empathy. In that sense there actually can be a Lamarckian evolution, and without any, how in the world could there not be extremely many traces of errors for evolutions trial and error!?!?!?
By the way, one reason to believe in the since-long-abandoned theory Lamarckian evolution is the frequent occurrences of exaptation in natural developments of functions in different species. That is evolution seems to copy some functionality for one capacity to fit in with functionality for another capacity - oftentimes more than ones. Moreover that seems to happen both between species and within the same individual body (thereby of course within the same species). More than using Lamarckianism for explaining such things, probably one can also believe sensitivity in oneness, and so, is an issue that might be considered more or less adequate for an explanation, too.
Due to this possibly very great advantage for the empathetic, the savage don't simply rule the planet (which I presume they would due to savagery's might). It is however not true that they cannot at all pertain to oneness, too. It seems to me very certain that a very strong general enthusiasm for oneness of savagery has been observed by religious people and defines their 'devil', the 'fallen angel' 'Lucifer'. Other enthusiasms for savagery can also gain spirit in the evolutionary sense, but they cannot manipulate their way out of loosing empathetic capacity for doing so, it seems.
I do not - at all - meant by this that we should all be into going to our churches or so, but I do mean that there is a God in that oneness matters in evolution!