Re: Overlapping fitnesses
From: Perplexed in Peoria (jimmenegay_at_sbcglobal.net)
Date: 02/08/05
- Next message: Tim Tyler: "Re: new model for the origin of life"
- Previous message: TomHendricks474_at_cs.com: "ATP, GTP = purine energy"
- In reply to: Jim McGinn: "Re: Overlapping fitnesses"
- Next in thread: Jim McGinn: "Re: Overlapping fitnesses"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2005 14:30:20 -0500 (EST)
"Jim McGinn" <jimmcginn@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:cu9itr$25d3$1@darwin.ediacara.org...
>
> Perplexed in Peoria wrote:
[snip much. I am only keeping stuff that I have comments about]
> This opens up the larger question as to what is
> nature's baseline of morphological similarity. This
> is a question that I think very few people have put
> much thought into.
That is because very few people think that morphological
similarity is a useful concept.
> I've thought about it a lot and
> have come to the conclusion that reality is
> uncompromisingly relativistic. And this runs
> against the grain of human intellect which tends to
> assume (for reasons that are rooted in the practical
> realities of what it normally means to successfully
> communicate from one individual to the next) the
> existence of absolutes.
>
> Remember, reality is uncompromisingly relativistic.
Yeah man! It, like, goes by really fast. And it can
get really heavy, you know? ;-)
The dictionary had two definitions for "relativistic". The
first is from physics and is parodied above. The second
is from philosophy and has to do with the notion that all
truth is subjective. Neither meaning is the one you seem
to want. Think about it a lot more, and find another word
for what you mean.
[snip some more]
> > Hmmm. Again you use that "intended to achieve" language. So,
> > it is apparently not a mistake. I think that you are going to
> > have to clarify just how you plan to determine "intent".
>
> I don't understand why you think determining
> intent is necessary (or relevant). (In fact, I'm
> not real sure that I understand what the issue is.)
You are the one who brought the word into the discussion.
But you seem to back away from it by saying that Adolf Hitler
may well have caused my existence, and that can be counted,
even though my conception was not his intent.
My advice would be that you stop using the word "intent" in your
definitions unless it becomes absolutely necessary. It
just creates confusion. (OK, Dr. Wilkins. So I don't always
practice what I preach.)
[snip]
> ... be careful not to dismiss the fact
> that I've resolved an issue that has been a
> thorn in the side of evolutionary theorists
> since Darwin. I've defined fitness!
What you have done is to provide YET ANOTHER definition
of fitness. (Actually, you haven't even done that yet, you
have so far only defined fitness increments).
There is no shortage of fitness definitions in evolutionary
biology. You haven't removed a thorn from the side of the
theorists, you have added yet another thorn. (Though yours
will be far easier to ignore than most.)
Mr. McGinn, the first few chapters of any textbook on evolutionary
theory contain little else BESIDES definitions of various kinds
of fitness. Absolute vs relative. Individual vs type vs gene.
These are good definitions - they do real work in real theory.
Defining fitness is not some unsolved problem that you are the
first to address.
- Next message: Tim Tyler: "Re: new model for the origin of life"
- Previous message: TomHendricks474_at_cs.com: "ATP, GTP = purine energy"
- In reply to: Jim McGinn: "Re: Overlapping fitnesses"
- Next in thread: Jim McGinn: "Re: Overlapping fitnesses"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
