Re: sci.bio.evolution mailing list

On Apr 15, 6:41=A0pm, John Edser <ed...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
johnhewit...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:-

Hi John H,

What I have been attempting for the past 10 years or so is to more
exactly conceptualize the traditional Darwinian approach.

Well, I still do not understand. I still feel that you need to gather
your work into one place where it can be consulted as a totality.
Also, I feel you need to develop ways of making your various points in
clearer ways.


b. Secondly, by my understanding, the purpose of theoretical
developments in science is to interpret observational data and you
have still not told me what observational data you ideas are intended
=A0to interpret. I have twice before asked you about this without
receiving an answer.

JE:-

I will provide a priority listing. Contrasting complex nested sets of
fitness with more simple intersecting sets of fitness allows the
following, critical observations of nature:

1) The empirical separation of individuals from populations.
2) Allow only a single fitness maximand to remain defined within
Darwinian falsifiable evolutionary theory which can act as a critical
required, Galilean (constant) frame of reference for that theory.
3) Prohibit as a required refutation, any proposition of total fitness
altruism, i.e. TDF cannot be selected to be reduced as it must be within
any truly fitness altruistic act.
4) Enable total fitness mutualism to be empirically separated from
Hamilton's proposed fitness altruism for the very first time. What
passes for fitness altruism in Hamilton's rule is actually total fitness
mutualism. Social evolution remains entirely based on mutualized gains
(investment) not altruism. Without TDF acting as a falsifiable, constant
frame of reference, fitness altruism cannot even be separated from
fitness mutualism.

I am sorry but none of these points leaves me any clearer about what
body of observational data you are trying to interpret.


Finally, I should offer two corrections concerning your comments
about my work. First, you seem to feel that my work on the origin of
life, rank0 evolution, is undefined. In fact, the chemistry of my
proposal is given on my present internet site as the "Theory of
Prebiotic Oscillations." You can find it via a google search on that
phrase. I do find it to be well-defined and to accord with the rules
of chemistry.

JE:-
My point is that the rules of chemistry remain insufficient to be able
to explain the origin of life.

I think that the mechanism I have given shows that they are
sufficient, though I accept that other people may find other
mechanisms that are also chemically sufficient.



The concept of fitness has always been basic to an evolutionary
theory proposed as a bona fide theory of science. In traditional
Darwinism something remains selectable only via its defined fitness.

I am not sure your emphasis on fitness reflects Darwin's position or
even whether he used the term fitness at all in his first edition
(others may know better). He certainly used the term "survival of the
fittest" in later editions but he adopted it from Spencer. Also,
Darwin developed sexual selection, in which selection is not strictly
about fitness but is related to it indirectly via observable,
phenotypic markers, which are usually taken, in some way, to indicate
fitness.

Also, Darwin took domestic breeding very seriously and that process
achieves selection and adaptation in ways that leave fitness
undefinable except in tautological ways (since, in those cases,
fitness exists primarily through the wishes of the selector.) Away
from Darwin's own work, there are other examples too.

All in all, I remain unconvinced about the general role of "fitness"
as an evolutionary concept, except as one among several attributes
that can lead to selection.

Sincerely

John Hewitt

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Evolution article in BioScience Encyclopedia
    ... The only way to empirically refute Darwinian evolution (which remains the ... omitted from Neo Darwinism fitness "Total Darwinian Fitness". ... i.e. "natural selection" cannot operate directly on each genomic ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: Physical fitness and evolution
    ... these adaptations generically result in a shorter lifespan. ... What is still missing within Neo Darwinian ... discourse is an _objective_ measure of _Darwinian_ fitness. ... All Darwinian natural selection will be halted. ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: SPITE: Hamiltons Laurel and Hardy Logic
    ... >> Spite constitutes an absolute fitness loss ... Darwinian total fitness with just a hand waving ... increase their total Darwinian fitness but absolutely reduce ... Darwinian fertile organism level of selection ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: Physical fitness and evolution
    ... these adaptations generically result in a shorter lifespan. ... What is still missing within Neo Darwinian ... > Darwin never used any explicit view of fitness but he does ... > 1) All Darwinian natural selection will be halted. ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: Laughter as an individual fitness advantage
    ... It is the individual centric _group_ argument in which the fitness ... Darwinian proposition. ... I think that the pure selfish reason is more ... group (no group selection or independent gene selection is required). ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
Loading