> >>> 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.

> >> GH:-
> >> This seems like a subtle, but potentially important, change
> >> from what I have
> >> read about your definition of absolute fitness before.  Are
> >> you saying that
> >> one's grandchildren are to be added to one's absolute fitness tally?

> > JE:-
> > No. A selectee can have MORE
> > than one fitness total because
> > it can reproduce itself into more
> > than just one population.

> GH:-
> OK.  I must say, though, that I can't see expecting anybody to get that
> message out of your statement above.

JE:-
It was always just a simple deduction
from the definition I have (endlessly)
provided. Are people so uneducated they
cannot perform a simple deduction?

> GH:-
> This is also the first time I have
> recognized this part of your definition.  BTW, if an individual can have
> several independent fitness measures, some potentially high and some
> potentially low, what do you see selection acting on.  I guess you see
> selection acting independently on this individual in each population.

JE:-
What else could it mean?
Group selection?

> GH:-
> It
> might favor the individual in some populations and disfavor it in
> others.  I
> find this to be an interesting way to frame the fitness problem,
> but I have
> never run into it before.  This seems to be one of those cryptic
> issues that
> results in misunderstandings in threads like this one.

JE:-
Indeed.

> > JE;-
> > Generations
> > within different populations are not
> > the same generation.

> GH:-
> I am willing to see where this logic takes us but, again, this is a
> completely novel use of the term "generation", AFAIK.

JE:-
They will all be generation 1 but
can only be 1a,1b,1c etc.

> > JE:-
> > I have avoided
> > discussing this complication because,
> > as yet, nobody here wishes to realise
> > the overriding significance of Darwinian
> > fitness within JUST ONE POPULATION
> > let alone within n populations!

> GH:-
> I think you are causing perceived logical problems in these discussions by
> leaving out bits like this.  This is the sort of idea that occasionally
> intrigues me about your overarching theory, but then I find myself
> disagreeing with your constant attacks on neo-Darwinian logic, which fill
> the majority of your posts.  I think you loose credibility with that
> approach and that you would be much better served to let all the
> cats out of
> the bag (perhaps one at a time and at appropriate moments).

JE:-
The biggest cat remains firmly
in the bag.

My intention of posting here
is to discover what is required
to make Neo Darwinism face its
most pressing contradiction:
only a relative fitness is required
within a science of biology.

The evasion and hopelessly contorted
postures that have been presented
here over the last 4 years or so
(which are still being presented!)
remain just amazing.

> GH:-
> Seeing the rest
> of the cats might help some of us appreciate a big picture kind of logic
> that would make us more apt to go along with some details that we might
> otherwise argue about.

JE:-
Neo Darwinists must face their
basic contradictions, firstly.

My 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 8/6/04 5:39:21 PM