> > > an absolute
> > > fitness-count of 1.
> > > With amendments it would look like this instead:
> > > Since one Edserian abolute fitness is ~exactly~ one reproduced
> > >generation,

> > JE:-
> > Incorrect

> > 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.

> PF:-
> Am forced to concede yet again!
> But I deservedly incurred being incorrect, having so weakly (only
> implicitly) indicated that 1 (reproducing individual) is only the smallest
> number of an Edserian fitness count.

JE:-
Peter, you did indicate "one reproduced
generation" and not a total fitness count
of just 1. The total count of fertile
forms reproduced into one population
is within one generation which in turn
remains within one population. Thus
n generations refers to 1a, 1b, 1c, etc
where the letters refer to _separately_
evolving populations and the numbers
the generation number.

My prediction: Masses of nonsense
group selective arguments will
"evolve" from the above...

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 6:19:27 AM