Has it ever occurred to you all (but John in particular) that adaptations
are aspects of phenotypes; And that these adaptations inseparably relate to
always _life-situational_ events, circumstances, or features of phylogenetic
environments [or simply "situations", for want of a less weedy vocabulary]
that impact on and involve individuals *in all phases of ontogenetic
expression*!?

Fecundity as a effect of fittness is also fine, BUT ONLY when figured to be
more a 'fragment of a flat projection of evolution as a four-dimensional
full-bodied space-time sphere' than a philosophical and theoretical end in
itself!

For now I largely left out, but did not forget, the philosophically
fair-enough facet of fundamental physical and chemicophysioanatomical
_"endo-opportune"_ [another by me engineered pragmatic term] evolutionary
patterning pressures.

Peter
--
This post of mine was, as my posts almost always are, stingily sponsored by
my own EAIMC Internetional Ptd. Lty. It was not just jotted in a
justifiable, though author-image jeopardizing, jester; but also - by Jove! -
with a
smidgeon of serious intent.

"John Edser"  wrote in message
news:avhsli$1knf$1{at}darwin.ediacara.org...
>
> Z:-
> Has it not occurred to you that you misunderstand Darwin's use of the
> term 'fit'? In the 19th century, the word was more often used to mean
> 'suitable' or 'appropriate' ('fitted') than 'healthy' or 'robust'.
>
> JE:-
> Fitness has become a much more exact term and
> is used today, to alone, determine when something
> is selected within nature. Thus it must be defined.
> Darwin only used it implicitly to mean the number of
> young that surive to fertile adulthood, since Darwin
> was well aware that only the young that did make it
> to adulthood could reproduce themselves. Neo Darwinians
> only count genes and restrict the time needed to calculate
> fitness to just the next organism generation, no matter if
> that organism is fertile or not. From the gene's eye view
> they end up allowing fitness to genes in totally
> sterile bodies. Using Darwinian fitness, only the genes
> in fertile bodies can have any fitness. Thus the two
> approaches are quite different at the gene selection
> level.
>
> Z:-
> Perhaps all Darwin was talking about was the survival of those
> versions of species that were more appropriate (well fitted) to their
> environment.
>
> JE:-
> Survival of a species has nothing
> to do with Darwinism. Survival at
> the individual level must increase
> Darwinian fitness to be selected,
> i.e. just living longer does not
> necessarily increase your fitness.
>
> Z:-
> As for altruistic behaviour, Darwin makes clear his views
> that domestic dogs are morally superior to their wild cousins on the
> basis that they are more altruistic, although recent studies of many
> species of wild dog have shown this view to be rather misguided since
> almost all dogs share the care of puppies on a pack-wide basis or set
> up three-parent families where the parents are assisted by one of the
> own siblings or a left-over puppy from the previous year's litter.
> Likewise equine society provides for all foals within a herd to be
> cared for by most of the adults. Donkeys even go so far as to
> 'arrange' baby-sitters, though those people who have studied this
> phenomenon cannot understand how the arrangements are made.
>
> JE:-
> Confusion has always existed between
> real and sham, altruism. Until fitness is
> defined and tested it is not possible to
> say when altruism is real or sham. If a cost
> produces a gain in fitness it is not
> altruistic! If it produces a loss in
> fitness it cannot be selected! If real
> altruism is documented within nature,
> then the definition of fitness used
> now becomes, refuted.
>
> Your scenarios above
> are mutualistic, not altruistic. It
> is fitness mutualism, the most powerful
> selective force possible that has been
> neglected since fitness altruism including
> "reciprocal altruism" has ended up taking
> up nearly everybody's research time and
> resources just because Hamilton's rule was
> misused.
>
> Hamilton's rule is valid when both:
>
>   K-f > f
>   rb  > c
>
>
> John Edser
> Independent Researcher
>
> PO Box 266
> Church Pt
> NSW 2105
> Australia
>
> edser{at}ozemail.com.au
>
>
>
>
---
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 1/10/03 2:44:46 PM