Re: Sequential Sympatric Speciation Across Trophic Levels

Peter wrote:-

Hi John,
Because you above, in your use of your concept "TDF", are also clearly
implying the traditional (ordinary 'common-sensical') meaning of
"fitness" -- which, if someone would ask, I would say is {answer *entirely
prudently tweaked* to accomodate your TDF concept} "a capacity of
individuals to meet the challenges that their lifetime present them with
well enough to eventually have a chance to become grandparents" --, I wonder
if you are ready to INTEGRATE these your defacto "categorical
exemplification" of evolutionary pressures of "opportunity type" (and, by
extrapolation, also all other to our evolution relevant such
evolutionary/selective pressures) WITH (a subcategory of) adverse lifetime
challenges (i.e. negatively naturally selective - or directly "naturally
pruning" - pressures) that I accEPTably define as "specific/synaptic
hibernation imploring type settings/situations/stressors" [this definition
refers almost exclusively to environmental sources of such stimulation - the
only relevant exception is _not_ people's inescapable and potentially
overtaxing ordeal of being born, because the source of the stress is
environmental relative the individual being born, but the pain that the
birthing process typically presents women, who are in the process of giving
birth, with], AND - MOST IMPORTANTLY - that such lifetime challenges DID (as
they do today) 'put' CURSES (my concEPT for a by a SHI-type predicament
conditioned-in kind of "neural state" - a dynamic state that can be
described as a 'secondary SHI-type' pressure and an insidious threat that
demands to be somehow successfully coped with or else succumbed to) into our
most recent prehuman ancestor's central Nervous (or central Actention
Selection Serving) system.

BTW: The accumulation of "conditioned-in unconscious reverberations of such
(SHI-type) stressors effecting symptoms"] happened very commonly within our
prehuman ancestors. However, *not quite as commonly* as this happens to/in
the lifetime of modern humans!

JE:-
Hi Peter.

I still have great difficulty understanding you. IMHO your sentences are
too long mostly because you include too many bracketed, more complex
inclusions. IMO these are better placed as separate sentences. If you
would briefly define your "opportunity" and "adverse" selective
categories and then provide empirical examples, these would help me.

As far as TDF is concerned this fitness represents TOTAL Darwinian
fitness per parent per population. IOW TDF integrates every heritable
trait including complex, epistatic, psychological traits, only because
TDF represents _the most complex trait that is possible_. Even though
TDF is only a simple tally of the total number of fertile forms
reproduced per parent per population it was and remains the most complex
trait within falsifiable Darwinism. Only TDF can provide a
scientifically valid, objective fitness MAXIMAND for evolutionary theory.

Forms are not naturally selected to become grandparents or even great
grandparents, they are simply selected to _always maximize TDF_. This
simply *results* in parents with a lineage, i.e. it is not causal. Each
Darwinian selective event was and remains concise, i.e it is NOT
endlessly smeared out over countless generations as oversimplified, Neo
Darwinian mathematics misrepresents Darwinian natural selection. Each,
single TDF selective cycle begins with one, fitness independent, fertile
form and ends with a total number of independent in fitness fertile
forms reproduced from each and every competing parent within the same
population. It is as simple as that. Once each TDF total has been
completed per parent per population _it remains fixed for all time_
within natural history, i.e. it represents a CONCISE FITNESS CONSTANT
and not just another, continually changing fitness variable.

Only a proposed fitness constant can possibly provide a falsifiable
frame of reference for evolutionary theory. Today's popular Post Modern
Neo Darwinistic view, which assumes complex traits must remain non
heritable because they must be shredded at meiosis, is not empirically
correct. This is mostly because of gene duplication and epigenetic
events such as gene imprinting (just to name two). Complex epistatic
fitnesses such as TDF have many heritable components.


Regards,

John Edser
Independent Researcher

edser@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Group selection in the breeding of super chickens
    ... Total Darwinian Fitness (TDF): the total number of just fertile forms ... Darwinian natural selection within one natural population is to ... Talking about competition between genes is a narrow, ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • TDF Journals Vs the internet
    ... "Total Darwinian Fitness as a FALSIFIABLE FITNESS MAXIMAND" ... Science was historically done via ANY REASONABLE FREE MINDED PERSON ... it is actually the reverse: the mono-centric TDF approach which I ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: Most important paper in evolutionary biology
    ... yourself (you actually provided two definitions of OFA ... TDF, which is measured per parent per population represents a Darwinian ... > But the way you define it, OFA is favored by selection by ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: Sequential Sympatric Speciation Across Trophic Levels
    ... selectors, i.e. simultaneously, Darwinian parents (as strictly, ... mono-centric fertile form units of selection) constitute an environment ... Specialization critically increases Total Darwinian Fitness (TDF) ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: Felsenstein and reproductive excess
    ... Once completed this fitness total ... TDF is entirely a heritable epistatic fitness (as are all ... Darwinian fertile form level of selection ... Not a single multi level theory exists for all these simplified/over ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)