"John Edser"  wrote in
news:b3qr9t$1i5m$1{at}darwin.ediacara.org: 

(snip)

>> Darwinian absolute fitness is the total 
>> number of units of selection reproduced 
>> per parent. Thus infertile immatures are
>> excluded from this count and a finite time 
>> value exists for any parent to complete
>> its one, absolute fitness. Thus selection
>> can select for, within this time
>> limit, many different reproductive strategies.
>> They range from high to low fecundity. Ticks
>> provide an example of high fecundity and 
>> humans an example of low fecundity.
> 
> BM:-
> What is this finite time value? It cannot be one generation, since I
> may have eight children, none of whom have any children, while my
> brother may have two children, each of whom has two children, etc.,
> etc. Who is more fit? 
> 
> JE:-
> Darwin was specific in suggesting that
> competition within nature was between
> adult forms struggling to raise as
> many immature forms to adulthood as 
> possible. This means that Darwinian 
> selection is just the default comparison 
> of all parental reproductive totals per 
> population. Logically, each adult form can 
> only provide ONE finite total of adult forms 
> it has  reproduced. This defines the time 
> limit involved, per parent. Mostly but not
> always, this limit is equal to one organism
> lifespan.
>


Let us get this very clear. You are proposing a time value of one 
organism lifespan. So in my example above (I have eight children who have 
no children, my brother has two children who each have two children), my 
fitness is four times that of my brother. Are we in agreement on this?



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 12/12/03 11:55:48 AM