> >>>> PF
> >>>> Since an Edserian abolute fitness is ~exactly~ one reproduced
> >>>> generation..

> >>> JE:-
> >>> Incorrect.
 
> >> PF:-
> >> I will concede that a suitable amendment to what I wrote would 
> >> be to make
> >> sure that every instance of "absolute fitness" would be 
> >> preceded by "one
> >> Edserian", but that otherwise my interpretation of your counting
> >> of absolute
> >> fitnesses was generously accommodating of your own definition 
> >> 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.

> 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. Generations
within different populations are not
the same generation. 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!

Regards,

John Edser
Independent Researcher

PO Box 266
Church Pt
NSW 2105

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 8/5/04 6:37:03 AM