> > JE:-
> > Absolute fitness is defined as:
> > The total number of fertile forms
> > reproduced into one population by
> > a parent.
> > This will consist of
> > n generations where n is
> > only _minimally_ = 1.

> NAS:-
> Okay, I've only just looked at this thread. I'm still not 100% sure I
> know what John is getting at, but it seems that his definition of
> fitness takes in descendants more distant than one's own offspring. Is
> this correct
> If I have understood correctly, then the definition is useless until
> we have defined n. What, exactly, is n?

JE:-
Dear oh dear...
Just read the rest of the thread.

It is deductive from the definition of
absolute fitness that I have provided
that the Darwinian fitness of any
Darwinian selectee can constitute a
total within more than just one 
population. The variable n refers
to the generation within ONE of
these populations. Thus within
more than one population n =
1a,1b,1c, etc where "abc" refer
to the population and 1 = n the
generation number.

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 8/9/04 12:52:02 PM