Ancestors='mostly dead individuals who managed to reproduce their fit genophenotypes'. Full stop.

From: P (fell_trapforspambot_in_at_ozemail.com.au)
Date: 08/06/04 

Date: Fri, 6 Aug 2004 18:23:21 +0000 (UTC)

The only mathematical modelling of differently "fit" [fitness=ability to
cope and reproductively survive] individuals interacting with environmental
features/forces/feedbacks (from F/F/Fs that are irregularly impacting to
F/F/Fs with an almost fixture-like influence) that *should* be of any
interest to those who DON'T desire to continuously reinvent
evolution-theoretical wheels [or add more spokes than are needed to those
evolution-theoretical wheels that already are rolling well albeit with a
slightly unsmooth (realistically unavoidably so) rationality] but that
rather DO have a dogged determination to steer them all inorder for them to
take us to a deeper and broader insight into aspects of What Is going (such
as ourselves - to those who dare), are the kind of counting that simulate
the emergence (evolution) of a rich and increasingly complex variety of
stylized creatures, from likewise simulated seeds of initial conditions, on
computer-screens.

However, if we randomly 'sample' life-situations of individuals of
phylogenetic populations of fauna (I have good reasons to focus on fauna),
the minimum "absolute fitness countability" ;-) of some samples of
"candidates
for ancestorhood" (reproductive survival) may well occassionally have been
as low on the Edsarian scorecard as a single pregnant female, a ditto
hermaphrodite, or (to paint a hypothetical picture of a very simple kind of
ancestral animal individual that may also have 'stared down the hell-hole of
evolutionary oblivion' ;) even a single amoebic ancestor with just enough
internal energy and proteinic oumph on tap to as a last-ditch act of defying
its individual loss of life, take [or cave in to the evolutionary pressure
of] the "Mother of all
evolutionary (in this case animal 'pre ovulation') opportunity" -- IOW the
evolutionary opportunity "type pressure" to REPRODUCE.

Yet again, it is _not the counting_ of reproductive survivals that ought to
be the topic for our discussions (ideally that is ;->)! It is the
evolutionary pressures (and instructive categories of pressures at that)
which caused us to be here IN THE WAY THAT (HOW) WE ARE that ought to be
discussed.

It is sad to see all this impressive intelligence and mental stamina being
spent on stale new (and staid old) "theoretical goods".

P