Since when has science produced an exact interpretation (or, even more to
the heart of the matter, a model or theory) for a biological phenomenon
and/or a conceptual facet of a phenomenon as complex, and with logical and
concrete components as vague and intricately connencted connected as,
"fitness" (just for a relevant example)!?

Edser's insists on an over-simplification that are at least NO LESS
debilitating (or insight inhibiting), if adopted, than most.

Specifically, what I see Edser saying, is:
1 adult individual (including eusocial such) = 1 unit of fitness.(!!!)


If that dogma does not deter from (or limit) deep insight into the
evolutionary emergence and content of our human/animal nature, then nothing
is.

What I have gathered from this and similar discussions here, is, that the
conventional view of (and use of) the term fitness is more realistically
multi-faceted than that.

Ordinary models are at least somewhat open and moldable, enough to be
modified and merged with related other models, into a motley map of the
emergence and ~mechanics~ of Mankind.

Albeit without the most missing AEVASIVE aspect of our nature and evolution!
:-<

P
---
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 1/30/03 12:17:06 PM