Re: "Relative fitness" and other evolution pertaining

From: John Edser (edser_at_tpg.com.au)
Date: 07/12/04 

Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2004 16:31:39 +0000 (UTC)

Peter F wrote:
> > JE:-
> > Before you _can_ measure any relative
> > fitness (which is just a comparison)
> > you must firstly measure the absolute
> > fitnesses that are to be compared.
> <snip>

> PF:-
> That "measurment" is being 'taken' all along. It is done by means
> of natural
> selection (of/amongst different genophenotypes) - or, still better beheld
> and grasped in bulk (IMO), as 'taken' by lineage-relevant "evolutionary
> (including lifetime) pressures".

JE:-
It only remains implicit within selection theory.
You have to make it EXPLICIT.

> So, it is measured _for us_ - with or without us - quite naturally, by
> Nature itself. :-)

JE:-
Yes, but not explicitly. It remains hopeless
to only suggest that light has a maximal
velocity within a vacuum if you do not even
wish to know what that maximal velocity is!
Likewise, it is hopeless suggesting that
Darwinian biological selectees maximally
reproduce themselves when you do not wish
to know what a Darwinian selectee actually
is.

>snip<

Regards,

John Edser
Independent Researcher

PO Box 266
Church Pt
NSW 2105
Australia

edser@tpg.com.au

Quantcast