phillip smith (deletethis-phills{at}ihug.co.nz) writes:
> I should have said I am working on a replacement for fitness( see reply to
> JE). I think fitness has fatal errors. We keep using it because we have had
> no choice. Not that I am sure I an do better.

Here is a definition of the fitness of a given gene in context.
For this definition to make sense, I assume a multiple-universe
model:  that due to quantum-mechanical fluctuations, a given universe
at a given point in time develops into multiple future versions
(possbilities), over which a meaningful probability metric
can be defined.

Consider a gene A in a particular individual X in a particular
environment.  Consider also all the copies of gene A, for
example in siblings, cousins, and other members of the population.

Consider the universe U containing individual X.  Consider also
the fictional universe U-prime which is exactly like U except that
individual X does not exist.

Go forward in time 5 generations, and count up
the average number of copies of gene A in the population, averaged
over the alternate universes with a probabilistic weighting.

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.
--
Cathy
---
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 11/29/04 6:19:57 AM