"John Edser"  wrote in
news:bu7bla$1r18$1{at}darwin.ediacara.org: 

> BOH:-

> 
> As an example: Think of two individuals.  One will live for 1 year,
> and then produce 10 offspring and die.  The other will live 100 years,
> and then produce 10 offspring and die.  Under your definition, both
> are equally fit.  However, everything else being equal, a population
> will soon be dominated by descendents of the individual that
> reproduces after 1 year.  I would maintain that any decent definition
> of fitness would take this into account (i.e. that it would allow one
> to predict which strategy would pre-dominate).
> 
> JE:-
> Of course, ALL THINGS ARE NOT EQUAL in the REAL
> world, are they. They are only ARTIFICIALLY equal 
> within your oversimplified model of the real world. 
> An almost countless number of other things can be unequal 
> when two equal absolute parental fitness counts are 
> completed, e.g. the individual that only lived for 1 
> year might have consumed 100% more energy reproducing and
> raising 10 individuals to fertile adulthood in such a
> short time compared to the other that quietly took its
> time but needed to live for 100 years to complete the
> same task. Or, the individual that lived for only 1 year 
> may have had to take many more risks than the more 
> conservative individual that lived for 100 years.

John Edser is once again trying to refute Darwin by arguing that
differential fitness does not exist,Clearly earlier reproduction will
win out over later reproduction and must be considered in determining
differential fitness. John, why do you continue to argue against basic
Darwinian concepts? 

Yours,

Bill Morse
---
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 1/17/04 8:31:21 PM