Tim Tyler  wrote in message
news:...

> If one is trying to refer to fitness as something 
> maximised by evolution - or simply increasing - then
> this sort of thing won't do.  
> 

The appropriate maximand is something which might be called 'relative
fitness'.  This obviously doesn't increase over time, since the
expectation of relative fitness at all times is 1.

> If you are trying to use fitness to measure progress
> in evolution, then you need a measure that really
> *does* increase over time.

And there is no reason to call it "fitness". 

Wouldn't the sensible approach be to define "progress" first?
---
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 6/30/04 12:29:43 PM