John Edser wrote:
>>>F = d(mv)/dt, defines force and mass in a circular way. For example,
>>>what is inertial mass. wee, its a measure of how must it resist smotion
>>>when a force is applied. Well, what is a force, its something that
>>>accelerates a mass...
>>>This is a basic issue absolutely inherent in any science. The
>>>fundamental defining equations are pretty much always circular.
>>
> 
>>BOH:-
>>But as we do not need to define fitness using these equations, the 
>>problem can be sidestepped.
> 
> 
>>JE:-
>>Out of the pan but into the fire...
> 
> 
>>BOH:-
>>Fisher's insight here was to define fitness in terms of the probability 
>>of living to age x, the rate of production of offspring at age x, and a 
>>penalisation term for the time taken to reach age x (!).  this all gets 
>>put into the Euler-Lotka equation, which can be solved to give the 
>>Malthusian parameter, i.e. the rate of increase.
> 
> 
>>JE:-
>>Such a "Malthusian parameter" is just an oversimplification
>>of a simple Darwinian fitness. All you have to do
>>to calculate an exact absolute fitness is count the TOTAL 
>>number of FERTILE forms reproduced by each PARENT within
>>one POPULATION. Everything that Neo Darwinism says and does
>>is just an over simplification of this _simple_ fitness count 
>>which represents the absolute fitness of each competing 
>>Darwinian selectee. 
> 
> 
> BOH:-
> No, you're the one over-simplifying.
> 
> 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. 

No, but I was trying to give a simple example to show why your 
definition was insufficient.  You're right that it was simple, but that 
was to try and illustrate the point I wanted to make.  Once you 
understand that point, then you can build in extra variables.  It was, 
as I stated, an example.

Bob

-- 
Bob O'Hara

Rolf Nevanlinna Institute
P.O. Box 4 (Yliopistonkatu 5)
FIN-00014 University of Helsinki
Finland
Telephone: +358-9-191 23743
Mobile: +358 50 599 0540
Fax:  +358-9-191 22 779
WWW:  http://www.RNI.Helsinki.FI/~boh/
---
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 8:31:32 PM