"Anon."  wrote:
> >>The fitness of gene A in individual X is the average number
> >>of copies of A in the futures of universe U, minus the average
> >>number of copies of A in the futures of universe U-prime.
> >>Descendents of cousins etc. are also included in the count.

> > That's a great definition - up to 5 generations. What happens
> > if all the
> > descendants at 6 generations die without issue? Is the fitness 0, or do
> > we have an arbitrary cutooff at 4 generations?

> BOH:-
> One could, of course, define the cut-off as the number of generations
> between the one where the gene acts, and the last relative to be
> affected by the gene's effect.

JE:-
Relatedness r=0 is only possible if
the gene in question was not descended from the
one common  ancestor. In all other cases r > 0
only _approaches_ but never reaches, zero.

Darwin implied a _testable_ to refutation "cut-off"
point to measure a _finite_ fitness value: one
generation of _fertile_ forms.

[moderator's note: Not to be heretical and all, but
who cares what Darwin "implied"? Let's not get stuck
on Darwin as scripture, shall we? The important thing
should be, what is correct? Darwin, for all his gifts,
has nothing to do with that. - JAH]

Gene centric modelling simply deleted the word "fertile"
ending up with only a heuristic infinite fitness
measure. For over 50 years they have invalidly
employed this heuristic to contest and win against
Total Darwinian Fitness where only Darwin's
implied maximand fitness can be tested to
refutation. The only response from Neo Darwinists
that post here to this argument is to throw out
Popperian refutation, i.e. they simply shoot the
umpire.

Regards,

John Edser
Independent Researcher

PO Box 266
Church Pt
NSW 2105
Australia

edser{at}tpg.com.au
---
þ RIMEGate(tm)/RGXPost V1.14 at BBSWORLD * Info{at}bbsworld.com

---
 * RIMEGate(tm)V10.2áÿ* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
 * RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 12/7/04 6:21:06 AM