www.Usenet.com
www.Usenet.com
| <-- __Chronological__ --> | <-- __Thread__ --> |
> JE:- >snip< > One quanta of fitness > is one fertile form reproduced <snip> PF:- Am presumably asking the following question on behalf of *not just* myself: What new insight (into e.g. ourselves) might this *extraordinarily simple* definition help us to gain? JE:- Thanks for the question. The answer is just, basic. Firstly, it EXPLICITLY demonstrates the common Neo Darwinistic modelling _misuse_ of including any_ fitness units that are infertile within a fitness count. If a tick gives birth to 100,000 immature infertile young and then dies but only 2.something reach fertile adulthood then the total fitness of that parent tick is EXACTLY 2.something and NOT 100,000. W. D. Hamilton misused Fisher's over simplified Neo Darwinian model of fitness by only counting the number of forms reproduced in just the very next generation of that form; fertile or infertile. He did this because this represented to him and a biased gene centric establishment, a valid gene centric fitness count. Hamilton's intention appears to assuage organism fitness altruism as validly caused by selfish geneism, i.e. selection at just his _hypothetical_ gene level of selection was supposed to cause organism fitness altruism at a _non_ hypothetical Darwinian level of selection. Hamilton et al wanted this causation to be true within nature because he did not want organism fitness altruism to be discredited (it was discredited because group selection was shown not to be able to support ita) because he, like Dawkins was a member of the (lunatic) politic left. Parental genomic genes (genes within the parents genome) were defined to have reproduced when their replicates have been put into just _any_ organism form, fertile or infertile. Thus Hamilton allocated an altruistic fitness to just infertile forms that only had a zero fitness to donate. Such an event is just an logical absurdity. If you have nothing then you have nothing to give away. Hamilton's altruistic fitness is just a _hypothetical_ that has be given inflated credibility by consistent misuse within a public funded and entirely biased, Neo Darwinian establishment that appears to wish to write itself an epistemological blank cheque with taxpayer's money by: 1) Including in a fitness count, infertile forms. 2) Not totalling ALL fertile forms reproduced from each parent i.e. not _explicitly_ including an _absolute_ Darwinian fitness count for each parent within Neo Darwinian reasoning. 3) Not including a finite time unit for any relative fitness measure they assumed. In simple terms, Hamilton deleted absolute Darwinian fitness and just substituted it with an arbitrary relative fitness. This reversed cause and affect within the science of evolutionary theory by reversing fitness debits with fitness credits within their mathematics. Darwinian fitness is NOT a cost for inclusive fitness as Hamilton required it within Hamilton's rule, inclusive fitness is a cost for Darwinian fitness. Using the same logic reversal as Hamilton, Enron accountants baldly reversed cause and affect within their mathematics so that economic debits became economic credits. These accountants destroyed one of the USA's largest companies. In the same way, the misuse of kin selection has destroyed the science of evolutionary theory as a _testable_ view. The requirement of how and why any scientific view must be testable was laid out, in simple terms, by the epistemologist Karl Popper who was knighted for his efforts. All of these Neo Darwinist errors dissolve away, and full testability returns, only when ALL FERTILE FORMS reproduced from each parent within each evolving population become the one, single, _absolute_ fitness concept within evolutionary theory. Best Wishes, John Edser Independent Researcher PO Box 266 Church Pt NSW 2105 Australia [EMAIL PROTECTED] Best Wishes, John Edser Independent Researcher PO Box 266 Church Pt NSW 2105 Australia [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| <-- __Chronological__ --> | <-- __Thread__ --> |
