Re: Absolute or just relative fitness?
From: John Edser (edser_at_tpg.com.au)
Date: 07/02/04
- Next message: Perplexed in Peoria: "Re: Kin Selection contradiction?"
- Previous message: Tim Tyler: "Re: Article: How good is our genome?"
- Maybe in reply to: Perplexed in Peoria: "Re: Absolute or just relative fitness?"
- Next in thread: Peter F.: ""Relative fitness" and other evolution pertaining tools-for-thought"
- Reply: Peter F.: ""Relative fitness" and other evolution pertaining tools-for-thought"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Fri, 2 Jul 2004 17:52:43 +0000 (UTC)
Guy Hoelzer <hoelzer@unr.edu> wrote:
> >> EK:-
> >> Do you mean
> >> 1. "reproduced by each parent into one population." in a single mating
> >> or
> >> 2. "reproduced by each parent into one population." throughout the
> >> lifetime of the organism?
> > JE:-
> > Obviously, you would have to exclude 1.
> > The total number of fertile forms reproduced into
> > the same population by one parent may not be
> > completed until well after that parent has died.
> > Plants can leave infertile embryos (seeds)
> > dormant for centuries. They may end up becoming
> > fertile forms many years after the death of the
> > parent plant. The total number of fertile forms
> > reproduced by a Darwinian selectee over its lifetime
> > just is a good approximation.
> GH
> An approximation? This seems like a major departure from your
> long standing
> insistence that this is exactly the Darwinian fitness.
JE:-
I defined Darwinian fitness in box 1.
Logically this definition allows for a parent to
die before all of its infertile reproductives
reach fertile adulthood. Mostly this is not the
case so mostly, the total number of fertile
forms raised to fertile adulthood within
the same population over just a parents lifespan
is only a good approximation. The totals remains
FINITE within both the definition and its
approximation so both remain testable
suppositions of nature.
> GH:-
> I have
> consistently
> argued that there can never be an exact definition of fitness,
> because I see
> fitness as merely a heuristically useful concept, demanding a variety of
> operational definitions in its application, rather than something that
> actually exists, demanding a single accurate definition.
JE:-
I have consistently argued that fitness
is an OBJECTIVE ABSOLUTE ASSUMPTION OF
NATURE upon which all evolutionary theory
is based and upon which the refutability
and verification of ANY theory of evolution
depends. I have unambiguously defined fitness
and given an experimental confirmation of that
definition that only requires a single level
of selection. You have denied that selection can
be halted within any natural population using
the exp. provided only because for you, multi
levels of selection exist in nature. You will
not even consider a single unit alternative
yet you offer no refutable position on this
matter. In short, you wish to substitute just
your hand waving exercise of only heuristic
multi levels of fitness for a more simple,
objective, testable and a more simple single
level theory of fitness. What you keep on
offering here is just, bad science.
>snip<
Respectfully,
John Edser
Independent Researcher
PO Box 266
Church Pt
NSW 2105
Australia
edser@tpg.com.au
- Next message: Perplexed in Peoria: "Re: Kin Selection contradiction?"
- Previous message: Tim Tyler: "Re: Article: How good is our genome?"
- Maybe in reply to: Perplexed in Peoria: "Re: Absolute or just relative fitness?"
- Next in thread: Peter F.: ""Relative fitness" and other evolution pertaining tools-for-thought"
- Reply: Peter F.: ""Relative fitness" and other evolution pertaining tools-for-thought"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
