Ahh, you’re being defensive here, responding in an emotional manner irrespective of the underlying biology involved.

That could have saved me some typing responding to your other comments.

There's no way to measure that in sperm, it only has potential. Most humans have similar intellectual capacity, yet they can perform vastly different depending on their environment, so the significant difference is not genetic.

Anyway, few would contest that being smart and strong is better than being smart or strong. Sperm can at least prove they're stronger.

Random bad luck is always part of any survival of the fittest situation. A meteor killing few thousand trees isn’t something a given tree at the center of the impact crater can do much about.

Also, it’s “fittest” as category not most fit as a ranking. Perhaps a better conceptual model is people who finish a marathon are a fitter group than those who start a marathon even if someone who failed was potentially in better shape than the winner. Many species have thousands of offspring because the odds any one of them reproduces is very low, a valid strategy not some sign of incompetence.

> Add luck doesn't explain millions either, it would sound the same if thousands dropped to hundreds

The actual cause is the full evolutionary history going back to the first life form and the environment each generation lived in, but we can still examine individual elements of what’s going on.

“Luck” is a multiplier on the number of sperm needed. The ability of an individual sperm to optimize its odds of success is a sign of cellular function. There’s zero contradiction between those statements. ~1:10,000 * ~1:100