Absolute or just relative fitness?
From: John Edser (edser_at_tpg.com.au)
Date: 06/28/04
- Next message: William L Hunt: "Re: Hardy-Weinberg lawt"
- Previous message: Tim Tyler: "Re: Analog vs Digital"
- Next in thread: Tim Tyler: "Re: Absolute or just relative fitness?"
- Reply: Tim Tyler: "Re: Absolute or just relative fitness?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 16:02:24 +0000 (UTC)
TT:-
So: mentioning fitness is confusing, because of the many meanings of
the word - and because the popular meanings lead to misunderstanding.
A measure of absolute fitness would be more acceptable to me.
JE:-
Why will nobody here admit that Darwinism
does contain an implicit absolute fitness?
______________________________________
box 1
Darwinian fitness:
The total number of fertile forms
reproduced by each parent into one
population.
______________________________________
The net results of the Darwinian absolute
fitness proposal above are:
1) Darwinism can be experimentally
refuted or uniquely verified testing
Darwinian absolute fitness:
__________________________________________
box 2:
Experimental test of Darwinian fitness.
A natural population that experimentally
holds the total number of fertile forms
reproduced by each selectee within one
population equal, must halt all natural
selection within that population.
__________________________________________
2) Only a single level of selection
exists within Darwinism as defined
in box 1.
3) Darwinian fitness cannot be selected
to be reduced. Thus selectees are not
forced to do anything except maximise
Darwinian fitness. This singular nature of
Darwinism mimics a teleological system.
4) Just one case of organism fitness altruism
documented within nature refutes the Darwinian
single level of selection theory of natural
selection.
5) If the experiment in box 2 if verified
then multi fitness levels are not verified
so they can be validly removed using Occam's
Razor
Regards,
John Edser
Independent Researcher
PO Box 266
Church Pt
NSW 2105
Australia
edser@tpg.com.au
- Next message: William L Hunt: "Re: Hardy-Weinberg lawt"
- Previous message: Tim Tyler: "Re: Analog vs Digital"
- Next in thread: Tim Tyler: "Re: Absolute or just relative fitness?"
- Reply: Tim Tyler: "Re: Absolute or just relative fitness?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
|