Fitness ( was: Our respiratory passage)
- From: "John W Edser" <edser@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2007 13:37:18 -0400 (EDT)
Lorentz <drosen0000@xxxxxxxxx>
If there is a cost to making extra holes, you would think that
the sharks (not necessarily the rays and skates) would feel them. It
looks like having one and only one hole is a local maximum rather than
an absolute maximum in fitness.
Is our fitness an absolute maximum or is it a local maximum? The
only intelligent designers that I know prefer absolute maxima over
local maxima.
JE:-
Intelligent designer's do not provide an _empirically falsifiable_ measure
of fitness but evolutionary science does. In evolutionary theory there is
just ONE falsifiable fitness. This remains an entirely a "local fitness"
which is a fitness count per Darwinian selectee per population measured as
Total Darwinian Fitness (TDF): the total number of strictly fertile forms
reproduced into one population by each parent. Only fertile forms can be
selected FOR ( the mechanism of selecting for represents the true Darwinian
mechanism and must remain separated from being selected against) and just
populations of Darwinian can selectee's evolve, i.e. Darwinian individuals
do not evolve and populations of them are not selected. The TDF value per
parent represents a maximand per parent, i.e. it is always maximal, i.e.
under no circumstances can TDF ever be selected to be reduced prohibiting
the evolution of organism fitness altruism within nature as a critical point
of refutation for Darwinian theory.
Regards,
John Edser
Independent Researcher
edser@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
.
- Prev by Date: Re: Artificial life likely in 3 to 10 years
- Next by Date: Re: DNA pioneer James Watson suspended in farcical race row
- Previous by thread: Re: Artificial life likely in 3 to 10 years
- Next by thread: Question about morphotypes of cells
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|
