Re: Physical fitness and evolution

From: Guy Hoelzer (hoelzer_at_unr.edu)
Date: 06/29/04 

Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 16:10:45 +0000 (UTC)

in article cbivm1$1ddg$1@darwin.ediacara.org, John Edser at edser@tpg.com.au
wrote on 6/25/04 9:56 PM:

>>> _______________________________________________________
>>> Box 1
>>> The total number of fertile forms reproduced
>>> by each parent within one population.
>>> _______________________________________________________
>>>
>>> I also argue that this can be easily proven by reverse
>>> engineering the above definition, i.e. by setting up a
>>> natural population (not just a model simulation) whereby
>>> the total fitness of each parent is artificially kept
>>> equal within one experimental population. Epistemologically,
>>> any unique verification (a verification only provided
>>> by just one theory compared to all the others on the table)
>>> when reversed, must provide a valid point of refutation
>>> for that theory. This principle is proven, here.
>>
>>> snip<
>>
>>> JE:-
>>> All of us must be much more careful in
>>> our use of "fit" or "unfit", in
>>> _any_ evolutionary theory context
>>> so as not to misuse it.
>>> Would Dr Hoelzer deny or confirm that
>>> his use of the term "Darwinian fitness"
>>> refers to the definition I provided in
>>> Box 1.
>>
>> GH:-
>> I meant it in a very general way, so it is completely
>> consistent with the definition in Box 1 without
>> excluding other definitions.
>>
>> JE:-
>> "..completely consistent with
>> the definition in Box 1 without
>> excluding other definitions"?
>>
>> It is ambiguous to leave your statement
>> at just that, unless you provide a
>> list of at least some of the definitions
>> included. Clearly, I meant it in a very exact
>> way such that it has to exclude many
>> other definitions such those provided
>> by Hamilton et al.
>>
>> Do you agree or disagree that the only possible
>> way to halt all natural selection within a growing
>> population in nature is to perform the experiment
>> above?
>
> GH:-
> You don't really provide enough detail about your experiment above to make
> an intelligent response, but I think I understand it from your previous
> writings. In fact, I think that I encouraged you to do your experiment
> years ago. It is simple enough to do in a rough way.
>
> I would answer your question by disagreeing. As you know, I think that
> selection can happen at many levels, so ensuring complete survival and equal
> reproductive success among individuals within an experimental population
> would not ensure the halting of all sources of natural selection.
>
>
> JE:-
> Firstly, why didn't you provide at least a partial
> list of these other definitions? I put it to you no
> such definitions exist. All you have to do to refute
> what I propose is provide at least one other definition
> of fitness that is "completely consistent
> with the definition in Box 1". Please provide it.

"Firstly," another definition of fitness (and a better one than in the Box
above IMHO) is "reproductive rate."

Secondly, it is irrelevant whether you think this definition is consistent
with yours. You snipped the start of this sub-thread above in which you
asked me whether I thought my use of the term "fitness" was consistent with
your definition in a particular statement. I responded that it was, as is
the "reproductive rate" definition.
 
[snip]

Guy