"Name And Address Supplied"
 wrote in message
news:cf693j$h8i$1{at}darwin.ediacara.org...
> "John Edser"  wrote in message
news:...
>
> > 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.
>
> 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?

Dr. Hoelzer and I at first misunderstood John the same as you did.  I suspect
that Peter was also fooled.  However, John has since clarified.  The
"n generations" that John mentions are all 1st generation descendents of
the focal parent - but distributed to n different populations for accounting
purposes.

Incidentally, I am beginning to suspect that John's "nested sets" are the
same as Price's.  But I have no idea what he has done with Price's covariances
and how he intends to deal with Price's dynamic insufficiency.
---
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 12:52:03 PM