in article cp25jn$1lqf$1{at}darwin.ediacara.org, John Edser at edser{at}tpg.com.au
wrote on 12/6/04 9:41 AM:

> Guy Hoelzer 
> 
>>> PS:-
>>> In other words fitness is not a property of individuals ?
> 
>> GH:-
>> Of course.  I don't know of any claim to the contrary.
> 
> JE:-
> Incorrect.
> Total Darwinian fitness which at the gene level represents
> just one epistatic fitness which remains the only scientific
> concept of fitness within evolutionary theory
> because it can be tested to refutation. I have
> outlined an experiment (not just a model) that can
> do so. Total Darwinian fitness is: the total number of
> fertile forms reproduced into one population by
> a parent. It is finite and not infinite and is
> calculated as an _independent_ parental fitness.

None of this relates directly to the question of whether fitness is a
(inherent) property of individuals.  As I went on to point out in the post
from which the comment above was taken, it is a property of the interaction
between individuals (at any level of organization exhibiting reproduction)
and their environments.  For example, " the total number of fertile forms
reproduced into one population by a parent" depends on the qualities of the
environment in which the individual exists.

> Of course none of this matters because Dr Hoelzer
> has thrown out the Popperian process of refutation
> for his own convenience.

It would have been far more convenient to hold onto the Popperian notion of
refutation, but logic demanded otherwise.

Cheers,

Guy Hoelzer
---
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 6:21:05 AM