Re: Absolute or just relative fitness?
From: John Edser (edser_at_tpg.com.au)
Date: 08/09/04
- Next message: Donald Forsdyke: "Re: Stephen J Gould Recommendations?"
- Previous message: Tim Tyler: "Re: what is life"
- Maybe in reply to: Name And Address Supplied: "Re: Absolute or just relative fitness?"
- Next in thread: John Edser: "Re: Absolute or just relative fitness?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2004 15:08:12 +0000 (UTC)
Name And Address Supplied wrote:-
> > > > > > > > > > > > > NAS:-
> > > > > > > > > > > > > .. my point is simply that absolute
> > > > > > > > > > > > > offspring number is not the appropriate maximand.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > The appropriate measure is relative.
> > > > > > > > > > > > JE;-
> > > > > > > > > > > > The maximisation of just a relative fitness
> > > > > > > > > > > > measure remains a logical impossibility unless an
> > > > > > > > > > > > an absolute fitness measure is maximised, firstly.
> > > > > > > > > > > NAS:-
> > > > > > > > > > > That is incorrect. The maximum relative
> > > > > > > > > > > fitness does not
> > > > > > > > > > > necessarily
> > > > > > > > > > > coincide with the maximum absolute fitness, i.e. one
> > > > > > > > > > > evolutionary
> > > > > > > > > > > strategy might maximise one and not the other. To
> > > > > > > > > > > decide which
> > > > > > > > > > > strategy is favoured by natural selection, we need to
> > > > > > > > > > > choose between
> > > > > > > > > > > the relative or absolute fitness maximand. And the
> > > > > > > > > > > relative fitness
> > > > > > > > > > > maximand is the one that delivers the correct answer.
> > > > > > > > > > JE:-
> > > > > > > > > > I will argue that you not correct where
> > > > > > > > > > such a basic difference does allow a test.
> > > > > > > > > > Using such a test, either your view or my
> > > > > > > > > > view must will stand refuted. Do you agree
> > > > > > > > > > that this is the case?
> > > > > > > > > NAS:-
> > > > > > > > > If I understand you correctly, then yes, I agree. And
> > > > > > > > > that was exactly
> > > > > > > > > my point (above).
>delete for brevity<
> > JE:-
> > Unless you explicitly state that fitness is
> > neither relative or absolute, when you suggest
> > you can test for a need for an absolute maximand,
> > and could prove it is not required, then you are
> > proving that a relative fitness can be a maximand
> > because any fitness is either absolute
> > or relative.
> NAS:-
> I only suggest that counting the number of fertile progeny will not be
> appropriate in all contexts.
JE:-
Please provide one context
where it is valid and one
context where it is not valid.
For the 2nd time please
answer the questions below:
Are you suggesting that fitness can
be validly, neither relative or absolute?
Are you arguing that no maximand needs
to exist within evolutionary theory?
> > > NAS:-
> > > Perhaps I have no idea what the general maximand is, but that
> > > I do appreciate that it is not absolute fertile offspring number.
> > JE:-
> > Your statement is nonsensical unless you argue
> > that no maximand at all, is required. If you
> > are arguing that a maximand is always required
> > then you just _imply_ one by _default_.
> > Since all fitnesses are either relative
> > or absolute, refuting one as a
> > required maximand just leaves the other
> > as proven.
> > Can a relative fitness constitute a valid
> > maximand within evolutionary theory?
> NAS:-
> I only suggest that counting the number of fertile progeny will not be
> appropriate in all contexts.
JE:-
What you suggest remains _insufficient_.
For the 2nd time please answer the
question.
> > > NAS:-
> > > I have constructed a scenario to test whether my
> > >understanding what you
> > > consider to be the appropriate maximand is correct.
> > > Once you have submitted your answers, I will submit mine. If we
> > > disagree as to what the ESS z* is, and why, then we can continue with
> > > the debate. If not, then we can call the debate off, knowing that our
> > > disagreement is purely semantic.
> > JE:-
> > I will not participate in such model
> > simulation until you complete the
> > form:
> >
> > "A DECLARATION OF MEANING "
> > So far you have only partly completed it.
> > The form is not a debate, just a declaration
> > of meaning. Please do not debate any issues
> > within the form, just complete the form.
> NAS:-
> As far as I am aware, I completed the form. What more, specifically,
> do you want me to add?
The form is composed of 3 questions in
principle an 7 other questions. You
are not to debate any issue in the
form. You only debated my answers
to the 7 questions when it was
explicitly asked that you do not
debate within the form. Simply,
answer the questions to supply
YOUR meaning, nothing else.
> > > > JE:-
> > > > Do you insist that no maximand is required?
>
> > JE:-
> > Your unwillingness to answer this
> > basic question provides more evidence
> > re: consistent evasion on your part.
> > JE:-
> > Please answer this question.
> NAS:-
> No, i do not insist that no maximand is required.
JE:-
Then you do you insist that a maximand is
required. What is your maximand?
> > > NAS:-
> > > Potentially the model provides the basis for an experiment.
> > JE:-
> > Please state the aim, method, expected result
> > and your conclusions from the expected result
> > of this implied experiment.
> NAS:-
> The aim is to test whether my understanding of your position is
> correct.
JE:-
Is that all?
To test that all you need to do
list your definitions of the
issue and compare them to mine.
Please provide your definitions
so we can all get on with it.
The rest is a waste of time....
> > > > > > JE:-
> > > > > > My Darwinian fitness experiment predicts
> > > > > > that _any_ allocation strategy can only
> > > > > > evolve when the absolute Darwinian fitnesses
> > > > > > of both sexes result in an increase, i.e.
> > > > > > their fitness becomes mutualised. Please
> > > > > > prove this was not the case in your model
> > > > > > and then explain why your simplifications/
> > > > > > over simplifications did not hopelessly
> > > > > > distort your model in this regard.
> > > > > NAS:-
> > > > > John, the model is extremely simple, yes.
> > JE:-
> > YES it is simple but it is NOT
> > just a model. I am NOT proposing
> > just a model, you are only proposing
> > a model. I have proposed the basics
> > for an experimental test of Darwinism
> > which is vastly more significant.
> > A model can only refute a theory by
> > proving that the theories definitions
> > were invalid, i.e. were self
> > contradictory. That is all a model
> > can do.
JE:-
Do you agree or disagree?
> > > > JE:-
> > > > The selection of recourse allocation
> > > > within any association requires a mutualised
> > > > Darwinian fitness increase for all members
> > > > of that association.
> > > NAS:-
> > > Right,..
> > JE:-
> > THEREFORE: natural selection is NOT ambivalent
> > to sex allocation strategy or any other strategy.
> NAS:-
> Okay, so what is the ESS, if there is one?
JE:-
The ESS will provide a Darwinian fitness
increase for all where this increase
will not necessarily be equal.
> > >snip<
> > > > > > JE:-
> > > > > > I regard it as more evidence for
> > > > > > evasion. "Fitness mutualization"
> > > > > > is just a simple, self explanatory
> > > > > > term.
> > > > > NAS:-
> > > > > And one which is not used in the literature.
> > > > JE:-
> > > > Two points: what does this say about
> > > > the literature, and why on earth should
> > > > anybody conform themselves to only using
> > > > terms that Neo Darwinists (who IMHO have
> > > > proven themselves biased, inadequate or both)
> > > > sanction?
> > > NAS:-
> > > Invent new terms at will, if you think they
> > > are required. However:
> > > 1) do not complain when participants on this board demand an
> > > unambiguous definition for the new term.
> > JE:-
> > I _have provided an "unambiguous
> > definition for the new term".
> NAS:-
> Yes, but it took alot of effort to get one out of you.
JE:-
Absolute nonsense.
I have been arguing for over 4 years
that Darwinian fitness mutualism
dominates evolutionary theory.
I changed this to mean "mutualization"
to differentiate Neo Darwinian mutualised
relative fitness gains from Darwinian
mutualized absolute fitness gains.
> > > NAS:-
> > > 2) try only to invent new terms when strictly necessary - for example,
> > > if 'mutualization' is synonymous with 'mutualism', use 'mutualism'.
> > JE:-
> > A new term is ABSOLUTELY REQUIRED because Hamilton's
> > rule defines mutualism and altruism in a totally
> > _ambiguous_ way because only a relative
> > fitness maximand was implied within his rule.
> > Definition:
> > Fitness mutualisation: An absolute
> > fitness increase for all who participate
> > in the association.
JE:-
Do you agree or disagree that
a new term was absolutely required?
>snip<
> > > > > > > > JE___________________________________________
> > > > > > > > Definition:
> > > > > > > > Mutualisation within Hamilton's rule is the
> > > > > > > > process whereby both the recipient and the
> > > > > > > > actor make a fitness gain.
> > > > > > > > ___________________________________________
> > > > JE:-
> > > > Please define:
> > > > 1) Relative fitness.
> > > > 2) Absolute fitness.
> > > > State how each is measured.
> > > NAS:-
> > > If we define fitness as the maximand of natural selection, then it is
> > > by definition relative, so relative fitness is synonymous with
> > > fitness, and absolute fitness is meaningless.
> > JE:-
> > More evasion. You said:
> > "provided that we also agree on the
> > definition of 'fitness'." Don't
> > just keep discussing the issue
> > provide your MISSING definitions.
> > Please define:
> >
> > 1) Relative fitness.
> > 2) Absolute fitness.
> >
> > State how each is measured.
> NAS:-
> Fitness: that which is maximised by natural selection. In my opinion,
> this is by definition relative.
JE:-
This is just a "hand waving" definition. It
is utterly useless. Please provide an objective
definition of fitness.
> NAS:-
> Fitness is measured according to the context. For example, if the
> context is such that the maximand is the number of fertile offspring,
> we count the number of fertile offspring.
JE:-
Once again you are attempting to
substitute your hand waving exercise
of what fitness may be for my objective
and thus testable definition of what
it can be asserted to be.
Please suggest how evolution can be
a science if you have nothing to
count to measure it and have no
way of counting it, anyway.
> > > > > > JE:-
> > > > > > "Tit for tat" is
> > > > > > the mutualised fitness strategy
> > > > > > that has been proven to exist
> > > > > > only using just over
> > > > > > simplified models.
> > > > > NAS:-
> > > > > TFT is usually unable to resist invasions of full Cooperators, by
> > > > > drift. Also, other strategies often beat it when there is the
> > > > > possibility of mistakes being made.
> > > > JE:-
> > > > It still remains the best
> > > > overall strategy as measured
> > > > by a plethora of simplified models, i.e.
> > > > it does not mean very much, anyway.
> > > > Do you deny that TFT is mutualistic
> > > > (this question does matter)?
> > > NAS:-
> > > TFT sometimes engages in mutualistic interactions. It depends on the
> > > strategy of the social partner, and their history.
> > JE:-
> > Please define "mutualistic" and
> > then outline one example that is
> > not mutualistic.
> NAS:-
> + / + interactions.
> whenever it plays defect.
JE:-
The above is not an answer,
just more evasion.
Please ANSWER THE QUESTION.
> > > > JE:-
> > > > The MODEL you presented was absurd.
> > > > I will outline its absurdity below
> > > > where it is discussed in detail.
> > > NAS:-
> > > The absurdity seems to be that you regard the trait as biologically
> > > improbable.
> > JE:-
> > No, it is biologically impossible
> > to evolve such a trait. You invoke
> > the trait in a hapless _created_
> > starting state.
> NAS:-
> This is a thought experiment,
JE:-
It is an absurd "thought experiment".
It cannot even start.
> NAS:-
> John. Given a context, I am asking how
> we would expect natural selection to work. I don't care about the
> origin of that context.
JE:-
The context is absolutely absurd
because no population could evolve
to that context. You are dragging
evolutionary theory down to the
level of creationism.
> > > NAS:-
> > > Perhaps this is the case. However, it is not physically
> > > impossible - for example, we could easily manipulate a population
> > > experimentally to produce such conditions.
> > JE:-
> > Please outline this experiment.
> > DO NOT just outline another MODEL.
> NAS:-
> Briefly, introduce a marker into the population at low frequency.
> Apply the selection regime: IF marker is present then kill all progeny
> of non-marked and half of the progeny of marked individuals, ELSE do
> nothing. Then you sit back and watch what happens to the frequency of
> the marker.
JE:-
And what do you suggest this experiment proves?
> > > > > NAS:-
> > > > > I was referring to "deleting Darwinian fitness" not "Darwinian
> > > > > fitness", i.e. I was saying that you are non-rigorous in your
> > > > > accusation of the failure of neodarwinism.
> > > > JE:-
> > > > Ok, let us settle this basic matter
> > > > once and for all. Please complete
> > > > the form I have submitted (and filled
> > > > out myself) in the new thread:
> > > >
> > > > A DECLARATION OF MEANING
> > > NAS:-
> > > Already done; ...
> > JE:-
> > Not that I can see.
> > You did exactly what was
> > _not_ required. You mostly
> > debated my entries.
> > Entries into the form
> > are NOT for debate within the
> > form. Please, just fill in
> > the form with your own ideas.
> NAS:-
> As far as I can see, this is what I did.
JE:-
No, you only debated my entries.
Just complete the form as requested
in the posting.
> > > NAS:-
> > > My answer is: I disagree with Dr O'Hara.
> > JE:-
> > Thank you for finally answering
> > this question! For the life of me
> > I cannot understand why you did not
> > provide this answer the first time
> > it was asked. It would have saved
> > sbe reader's time and effort.
> > Please say how you CAN measure
> > "the difference between
> > a reduced positive c and a negative c"
> > within Hamilton's rule.
> NAS:-
> If it is positive, then write down "positive c", and if it is
> negative, write down "negative c". You see, the sign of the fitness
> component kind of gives it away.
JE:-
You appear to have missed the
point. Dr O'Hara is well aware that
the rule only measures a relative
difference and not an absolute
difference. This rule cannot tell
the difference between an absolute
loss and an absolute gain. The rule
only has "+" and "-" to measure 3
biological variables, r, b and c. No
constant term exist within the rule.
Therefore, if "no difference between a
reduced positive c and a negative c"
can be measured via the rule as Dr O'Hara
maintains, then this means that both
appear as a negative c.
>snip<
> > JE:-
> > Here are my definitions
> > with brief examples
> > re: physics and biology:
> >
> > 1) A point of refutation:
> > A deduction from the
> > definitions that is prohibited,
> > e.g. light cannot travel faster
> > than c. If such a prohibited
> > deduction becomes a documented
> > observation then the definition
> > stands refuted. In evolutionary
> > theory Darwinism stands refuted
> > when just one confirmed documented
> > case within nature of organism
> > fitness altruism is shown to
> > exist in nature (NOT just within
> > a model).
> NAS:-
> So Darwinism ended with Darwin's discussion of the social insects in
> the first edition of The Origin of Species?
JE:-
No it didn't.
Only Hamiltonian et al arrogance
insists that just _their_ organism
fitness altruistic view can adequately
explain eusocials. I have provided
a competing Darwinian fitness
argument. Eusocials do not constitute
a point of refutation for Darwinian
fitness.
> > JE:-
> > 2) Refutation via invalidity:
> > If a definition is proven to
> > be self contradictory then it
> > stands refuted, e.g. when the speed
> > of light is defined as _both_ a
> > constant and a variable. In
> > evolutionary theory, Hamilton's
> > model stands refuted because
> > no difference between a reduced
> > positive c and a negative c exists
> > within the model.
> NAS:-
> But I thought we just decided that there was a difference, i.e. a
> difference of sign . . . ?
JE:-
"We" did not decide anything of the sort.
You decided that there exists a difference
in sign when no such difference can exist
according to Dr O'Hara.
> > > > > NAS:-
> > > > > Certainly I have seen no evidence
> > > > > that you have anything interesting to add to evolutionary
> > > > > theory from
> > > > > your contributions to this board. Don't get me wrong, there does
> > > > > appear to be the occasional flash of insight.
> > > > JE:-
> > > > Do you refer to:
> > > > r^eb > c?
> > > NAS:-
> > > Er, no.
> > JE:-
> > Ok, please be specific.
> > To what do you refer?
> NAS:-
> Irrelevant.
JE:-
"Irrelevant?
Please do a course in basic
logic. The term "irrelevant"
can only refer to what you
wrote:
"I have seen no evidence
that you have anything interesting
to add to evolutionary theory from
your contributions to this board. Don't
get me wrong, there does appear to be
the occasional flash of insight."
You brought this up and not myself.
Either provide examples or apologise
for your implied _denigration_.
> > > > > NAS:-
> > > > > But these appear to have
> > > > > been reinventing the wheel, as you seem to be hugely
> > > > > ignorant of the
> > > > > primary literature from the last 35 - 40 years.
> > > > JE:-
> > > > I have proven that you and your
> > > > colleagues don't know what
> > > > the Darwinian wheel actually is.
> > > NAS:-
> > > Sorry, I must have missed that.
> > JE:-
> > Yes, you did miss it....
> > Please provide any other definition
> > that is different to the one that I
> > have provided that allows Darwinism
> > to be tested to refutation. Unless
> > you can, my statement stands verified.
> NAS:-
> This is nonsense. I can prove that your maximand is insufficient by
> using a counter example; I do not need to provide a general maximand.
JE:-
Yes you do. When my maximand stands refuted
it will be so because your maximand worked but
mine did not. The fact that you do not even know
what your maximand is, remains irrelevant to
this argument.
> > > > NAS:-
> > > > The literature you mention is mostly based
> > > > on just a misuse of over simplified
> > > > models. My prediction is that one
> > > > day, as a professional in the field,
> > > > you and all the others will taken to
> > > > account over this misuse. Then again,
> > > > you have chosen to remain anonymous,
> > > > haven't you...
> > > NAS:-
> > > I agree that there is a misuse of over simplified models in the
> > > literature. Maybe this will shock you but researchers do not believe
> > > everything they read, even in the peer reviewed literature.
> > JE:-
> > Your example of model misuse was
> > the employment of IBD within
> > Hamilton's rule. Do you have
> > any other examples?
> NAS:-
> Can we get back to the main point, John?
JE:-
The main point here is model misuse.
My main example was Hamilton's rule.
I have also argued that evolution
by sampling error constituted
a misused model.
Your example was just, IBD within
that rule. Your only objection was
mathematical. Do you agree that a
model can be misused even when the
mathematics remains valid?
> > JE:-
> > You agree that a model can be
> > misused but can a theory be
> > misused within the sciences?
> NAS:-
> Misused suggests used, which suggests applied. So it depends on your
> definition of 'model'. If an applied theory is a model, then I suppose
> not. But then, maybe you mean something else by 'model' . . .
JE:-
I have defined:
A theory. A model.
I have also defined the
difference between a simplification
and an over simplification within
a model.
_______________________________________
So far sbe readers do not even know
if you differentiate between a model
and a theory! Do you?
_______________________________________
> > JE:-
> > Josh has stated he will
> > allow the term "created"
> > and "creation" within
> > sbe as long as it is
> > not being debated. Here
> > I am simply stating that
> > the logical construction
> > of your model is based
> > on (absurd) creationistic
> > logic.
> NAS:-
> You are absurd. I suggested a thought experiment, and now that makes
> me a creationist simply because I haven't provided a whole
> physico-chemical theory for the origin of the population and trait in
> question?
JE:-
The starting position of your model
was biologically absurd. Please explain
how one trait can penetrate an entire
population making it sterile?
> > > > JE:-
> > > > If life
> > > > was created then trees must have
> > > > phoney growth rings created in them
> > > > and Adam must have a phoney navel.
> > > > Likewise you created a population
> > > > "which stops every wildtype individual
> > > > in the population reproducing at all"
> > > NAS:-
> > > This is tiresome.
> > JE:-
> > Yes it is. It was
> > very tiresome of you
> > to CREATE a starting
> > population where "every
> > wildtype individual in
> > the population" cannot
> > breed. Evolve one, YES
> > create one, NO!
> NAS:-
> I can hear the bottom of the barrel being scraped.
JE:-
No, I am arguing that your created
barrel does not exist and could
never exist anymore than phoney
growth rings in a created tree
can exist. The created starting
position of your model was phoney:
"every wildtype individual
in the population" cannot breed.
Such a starting position for a
model of biology only constitutes
insulting nonsense.
> NAS:-
> I'll take this as
> agreement that natural selection can, at least in certain contexts,
> lead to an immediate absolute reduction in the number of progeny.
JE:-
Please stop insulting the intelligence
of sbe readers.
> > > > > > > NAS:-
> > > > > > > As it happens, I do have a fairly general
> > > > > > > alternative maximand, relative fitness. However, I am
> > > > > > > less interested
> > > > > > > in showing that this is the correct measure, than in
> > > > > > > showing that
> > > > > > > yours is incorrect.
> > > > > > JE:-
> > > > > > The above is a logical impossibility.
> > > > > > In order to prove I am wrong you must
> > > > > > provide CONCRETE alternatives.
> > > > > NAS:-
> > > > > Not so.
> > > > JE:-
> > > > So you know all the things that you do
> > > > not know?
> > > NAS:-
> > > This has no relevance.
> > JE:-
> > Yes it has.
> > Unless you know the things you
> > do not know then you must replace
> > an invalid maximand with a valid
> > one i.e. only an alternative
> > and proven better maximand allows
> > you to refute mine. The fact that
> > you may only imply a maximand
> > is immaterial, it still has to exist.
> > The only possible way you can escape
> > is to explicitly state that no
> > maximand is ever required, i.e.
> > "everything is relative". This
> > is termed Post Modernism. Many
> > posters openly admit that
> > they are Post Modern "thinkers".
> NAS:-
> I do not need to have a general maximand at the ready to show that
> yours is inappropriate.
JE:-
It may not be "at the ready" but it
does exist as however, just implicit.
It is YOUR responsibility to make
it EXPLICIT or DENY that a maximand
is ever required. Which is it?
> > JE:-
> > Please be specific. Are you arguing
> > from a Post Modern Perspective or
> > do you suggest that a maximand has
> > to exist, even if it remains implicit?
> NAS:-
> I only suggest that counting the number of fertile progeny will not be
> appropriate in all contexts.
JE:-
Such an event is impossible. Do we
really require a detailed discussion
to prove why this is the case?
> > > > > > JE:-
> > > > > > You have to provide a contesting
> > > > > > maximand that can be tested to
> > > > > > refutation or prove that just
> > > > > > a relative fitness measure can
> > > > > > act as a valid maximand. So far
> > > > > > you have provided neither.
> > > > > NAS:-
> > > > > I don't need to if all I am doing is demonstrating that absolute
> > > > > fitness is not the appropriate maximand, i.e. leads to incorrect
> > > > > predictions.
> > > > JE:-
> > > > IF "absolute fitness is not the appropriate maximand,
> > > > i.e. leads to incorrect predictions" THEN relative
> > > > fitness must be an appropriate maximand for any
> > > > correct prediction i.e. YOU HAVE provided a default
> > > > alternative but you are foolishly attempting to hide
> > > > it. Now why is that?
> > > NAS;-
> > > Because the true maximand is not of immediate interest to me.
> > JE:-
> > That is logically the same as suggesting
> > to Einstein that c, the maximal velocity
> > of light in a vacuum "is not of immediate
> > interest" to you because you wish to
> > maintain M (mass) and t (time) as constants
> > in the way Newton defined them, i.e.
> > it is just a load of reactionary nonsense.
> NAS:-
> Unfortunately I cannot claim to the depth of insight into general
> relativity that you boast.
JE:-
Obvious evasion. Both physics and biology
are SCIENCES. A physics model is more simple,
that is all. It does not even matter what
E, M. and c mean in E = Mc^2 for this discussion!
All that matters is that c is maximum. When
c becomes just another variable like E and M
then the mathematics allows such a massive
range of valid results for E that E becomes
MEANINGLESS within any science of E.
Please indicate if you agree of disagree.
> > > NAS:-
> > > Of immediate interest is the demonstration that it is not
> > > always absolute
> > > number of fertile offspring. One step at a time, John.
> > JE:-
> > The FIRST step is to identify
> > your own IMPLICIT maximand so
> > sbe reader's can COMPARE yours to
> > the one I have suggested. You do have
> > one but you do not wish to _explicitly_
> > identify it and thus expose it to possible
> > refutation. You are simply protecting
> > the maximand you _prefer_. It is childish
> > nonsense to insist that you only need to
> > refute the one I have provided.
> NAS;-
> This is plain wrong. Number theorists are able to show that previous
> attempts at proving Goldbach's conjecture are flawed, even though they
> cannot offer an alternative proof.
JE:-
This is because mathematics IS NOT
A SCIENCE. Mathematics is based on
irrefutable conjectures. The science
of biology is based on REFUTABLE
conjectures. Please stop confusing
the non science of mathematics
with the science of biology.
>snip<
> > > > > > > NAS:-
> > > > > > > The reference is the population average, which appears on the
> > > > > > > denominator of the more appropriate maximand,
> > > > > > > relative fitness.
> > > > > > JE:-
> > > > > > Your proposition is absurd. Averages
> > > > > > hide all the selective action they do
> > > > > > not elucidate them. You must DEFINE
> > > > > > the maximand not just imply one _may_
> > > > > > exist hidden away within some "average"
> > > > > > measure.
> > > > > NAS:-
> > > > > Uh, the population average is in the maximand, not vice
> > > > > versa, John.
> > > > JE:-
> > > > Uh, the population average is just a statistical
> > > > rework of a biological _reality_ it is not a
> > > > biological reality in its own right.
> > > NAS:-
> > > Perhaps, but the action of natural selection is a fundamentally
> > > statistical process.
> > JE:-
> > The action of natural selection is NOT
> > "fundamentally statistical process."
> > Natural selection is the default comparison
> > of all parental Darwinian absolute fitness
> > within one population. This is NOT a statistical
> > process. The absolute fitnesses are NOT
> > themselves being retotalled or statistically reworked
> > in any way they are simply compared by default.
> NAS:-
> That is not what I suggested, John. Change due to natural selection
> can be expressed in terms of statistical measures, such are
> regressions. This does not imply indeterminism or reworking of
> anyone's fitness.
JE:-
Yes "Change due to natural selection
can be expressed in terms of statistical
measures" but it CANNOT be replaced by
just statistical measures. In short,
mere mathematics cannot replace biology
anywhere within any _science_ of biology.
Please indicate if you agree or
disagree. If you disagree please provide
an example.
> > > > JE:-
> > > > Please supply a REAL biological maximand.
> > > NAS:-
> > > Absolute fertile offspring number is a real biological maximand in
> > > certain contexts.
> > JE:-
> > Please provide the context where
> > "absolute fertile offspring number"
> > provides an incorrect maximand.
> NAS:-
> This was my aim when I provided the sex allocation example. Why don't
> we have a closer look at it, hmm?
JE:-
You will have to suggest a competing
maximand for your theory of how sex
allocation evolved to refute mine.
> > > > > > JE:-
> > > > > > What is the maximand
> > > > > > within Price's theorem?
>snip repeats<
> > > > JE:-
> > > > Do you agree that any relative fitness
> > > > is a fitness comparison, i.e. it is
> > > > a bilateral term and not a unilateral
> > > > term?
>
> > > NAS:-
> > > If I understand you, then I agree.
>
> > JE:-
> > "If I understand you"?
> > What have I said here that
> > is ambiguous?
> NAS:-
> I am having some difficulty given that you have forced me to commit to
> a definition of fitness of my choosing (a definition which, it turns
> out, makes discussions of absolute and relative fitness meaningless),
JE:-
Yes. This was because your thinking was incorrect
to start with. When a contradiction arises via
a valid deduction from a set of premises then re-examine
your starting premises because they have refuted
via invalidity, before your very eyes....
> NAS:-
> yet you then demand that I respond to questions phrased in terms of
> your definition of fitness (i.e. about absolute and relative
> fitnesses). Can you not see how ridiculous you are being, John?
JE:-
It remains yourself who is being ridiculous.
It is yourself and not myself who could not
UNAMBIGUOUSLY define relative and
absolute fitness! Your failure to
be able to do so, and your
subsequent attempt to blame me for
it remains an outrageous act of
vindictiveness. Are you prepared
to apologise?
> > JE:-
> > You have agreed that relative fitness
> > is a minimally bilateral measure, i.e.
> > it is just a COMPARISON of at least
> > TWO OTHER FITNESSES.
> NAS:-
> I will go so far as to say that I believe fitness is usally expressed
> as a fraction, with some value associated with the agent forming the
> numerator, and a value associated with the population as a whole
> forming the numerator. I would call neither the denominator nor the
> numerator measures of fitness. I would call the fraction fitness.
JE:-
Lets see if I have this correct.
You are stating explicitly that
two absolute fitnesses do NOT have
to be compared to make a relative
fitness. Is that what you are
now saying?
> > > > JE:-
> > > > Previously you noted that "marginal
> > > > fitness" was not an absolute or
> > > > relative fitness. Have you changed
> > > > your mind?
> > > NAS:-
> > > Can you provide a quote and reference? I have on countless
> > > occasions
> > > provided statements to the contrary.
> > JE:-
> > Below is the requested requote:
<NAS snipped the repost proof>
> > JE:-
> > If you cannot follow/remember your own
> > train of thought how can sbe reader's
> > believe that you can follow a contesting
> > argument?
> NAS:-
> This was a rather pointless waste of time. I had already acknowledged
> that I had misread the question, and provided a more appropriate
> response.
> This had nothing to do with my ability to follow my own
> train of thought.
JE:-
I posted my reply post before you made
any correction. As it happens you remain
self contradicted, anyway. You had
previously stated that marginal fitness
was not a relative or an absolute fitness
but later on you changed that
to a relative fitness while falsely claiming
you had not changed your mind. Do we now have
to troll over your posts to prove this?
>snip<
Regards,
John Edser
Independent Researcher
PO Box 266
Church Pt
NSW 2105
Australia
edser@tpg.com.au
- Next message: Donald Forsdyke: "Re: Stephen J Gould Recommendations?"
- Previous message: Tim Tyler: "Re: what is life"
- Maybe in reply to: Name And Address Supplied: "Re: Absolute or just relative fitness?"
- Next in thread: John Edser: "Re: Absolute or just relative fitness?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
