Absolute or just relative fitness?



J

John Edser

Guest
TT:- So: mentioning fitness is confusing, because of the
many meanings of the word - and because the popular meanings
lead to misunderstanding. A measure of absolute fitness
would be more acceptable to me.

JE:- Why will nobody here admit that Darwinism does contain
an implicit absolute fitness?

______________________________________
box 1 Darwinian fitness: The total number of fertile forms
reproduced by each parent into one population.
______________________________________

The net results of the Darwinian absolute fitness proposal
above are:

1) Darwinism can be experimentally refuted or uniquely
verified testing Darwinian absolute fitness:
__________________________________________
box 2: Experimental test of Darwinian fitness. A natural
population that experimentally holds the total number of
fertile forms reproduced by each selectee within one
population equal, must halt all natural selection within
that population.
__________________________________________

2) Only a single level of selection exists within Darwinism
as defined in box 1.

3) Darwinian fitness cannot be selected to be reduced. Thus
selectees are not forced to do anything except maximise
Darwinian fitness. This singular nature of Darwinism
mimics a teleological system.

4) Just one case of organism fitness altruism documented
within nature refutes the Darwinian single level of
selection theory of natural selection.

5) If the experiment in box 2 if verified then multi fitness
levels are not verified so they can be validly removed
using Occam's Razor

Regards,

John Edser Independent Researcher

PO Box 266 Church Pt NSW 2105 Australia

[email protected]
 
John Edser <[email protected]> wrote or quoted:
>
> TT:- So: mentioning fitness is confusing, because of the
> many meanings of the word - and because the popular
> meanings lead to misunderstanding. A measure of absolute
> fitness would be more acceptable to me.
>
> JE:- Why will nobody here admit that Darwinism does
> contain an implicit absolute fitness?
>
> ______________________________________
> box 1 Darwinian fitness: The total number of fertile forms
> reproduced by each parent into one population.
> ______________________________________
>
> The net results of the Darwinian absolute fitness proposal
> above are:

FWIW, that isn't what I meant by "absolute fitness".

If one is trying to refer to fitness as something maximised
by evolution - or simply increasing - then this sort of
thing won't do. Many organisms probably had about 2.6 kids
millions of years ago as well - and this quantity shows
relatively little sign of increasing with time.

If you are trying to use fitness to measure progress in
evolution, then you need a measure that really *does*
increase over time.

If today you replaced half of the world with its mesozoic
equivalent - and then waited a few thousand years - I reckon
most of the metazoic fauna and flora will have been wiped
out in competition with modern forms - in a similar way to
the way most marsupials don't stand up to competition with
placental mammals.

It would be a war of technology - the humans would
obliterate the therapsids and archosaurs much as they are
wiping out most of the modern large predators - by
destroying or occupying their habitat - and by shooting
them. The humans - and their ecosystem - would win because
they have better technology on a range of fronts.

It's perhaps a bit of a stretch to refer to something like
"technological prowess" as a sort of fitness - but that's
what I was talking about - not how many kids an organism
has, is expected to have - or anything like that.
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ [email protected] Remove
lock to reply.
 
"John Edser" <[email protected]> wrote
> Darwinian fitness: The total number of fertile forms
> reproduced by each parent into one population.

Do you mean

1. the number of offspring with the potential to reproduce
if they live long enough (noting that most neonates are
infertile - eg mammmals)

or

2. the number that actually survive to the age at which they
become fertile (which will be <= the actual number
produced)?

====================================================

Do you mean

3. "reproduced by each parent into one population." in a
single mating

or

4. "reproduced by each parent into one population."
throughout the lifetime of the organism?
 
Tim Tyler <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

> If one is trying to refer to fitness as something
> maximised by evolution - or simply increasing - then this
> sort of thing won't do.
>

The appropriate maximand is something which might be called
'relative fitness'. This obviously doesn't increase over
time, since the expectation of relative fitness at all
times is 1.

> If you are trying to use fitness to measure progress in
> evolution, then you need a measure that really *does*
> increase over time.

And there is no reason to call it "fitness".

Wouldn't the sensible approach be to define "progress"
first?
 
Name And Address Supplied <[email protected]> wrote or quoted:
> Tim Tyler <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:<[email protected]>...

[number of kids metric?]

> > If one is trying to refer to fitness as something
> > maximised by evolution - or simply increasing - then
> > this sort of thing won't do.
>
> The appropriate maximand is something which might be
> called 'relative fitness'. This obviously doesn't increase
> over time, since the expectation of relative fitness at
> all times is 1.

That sort of relative fitness has some problems of its own.
Who else do you include in the population? Only other
members of the species?

If so, that neglects competiton between species - and
focusses on competiton between individuals - perhaps a
rather distorted way to focus on nature.

> > If you are trying to use fitness to measure progress in
> > evolution, then you need a measure that really *does*
> > increase over time.
>
> And there is no reason to call it "fitness".

It seems like an appropriate term to me - if it wasn't
already so overloaded. Today, "fitness" is a bad name for
practically anything - due to the overloading problem.

> Wouldn't the sensible approach be to define
> "progress" first?

Progress means "advance" or "steady improvement".

I did try to give some indication of what that might mean in
the context of biology in my last post:

``If today you replaced half of the world with its mesozoic
equivalent - and then waited a few thousand years - I reckon
most of the metazoic fauna and flora will have been wiped
out in competition with modern forms - in a similar way to
the way most marsupials don't stand up to competition with
placental mammals.''
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ [email protected] Remove
lock to reply.
 
If today you replaced half of the world with its mesozoic
equivalent - and then waited a few thousand years - I reckon
most of the metazoic fauna and flora will have been wiped
out in competition with modern forms - in a similar way to
the way most marsupials don't stand up to competition with
placental mammals. It would be a war of technology - the
humans would obliterate the therapsids and archosaurs much
as they are wiping out most of the modern large predators -
by destroying or occupying their habitat - and by shooting
them. The humans - and their ecosystem - would win because
they have better technology on a range of fronts. It's
perhaps a bit of a stretch to refer to something like
"technological prowess" as a sort of fitness - but that's
what I was talking about - not how many kids an organism
has, is expected to have - or anything like that.

Tim Tyler

___________________________________

Perhaps your mention of marsupials being outcompeted by
humans was recently sparked by the following news story:

Koalas face extinction, activists warn Australian group
cites loss of habitat to development

David Gray / Reuters file

The future for these twin koala bears and their peers
is bleak after an Australian group found that 30
percent of 1,000 habitat sites surveyed no longer had
koalas living there.

SYDNEY - Koalas, Australia's iconic symbol, face extinction
as rapid urbanization along the eastern seaboard destroys
their fragile habitat, the Australian Koala Foundation is
warning. The group has written to the government urging it
to declare the koala a vulnerable species after a survey of
1,000 koala habitats found 30 percent no longer had a koala
in them and 60 percent had suffered widespread destruction.
"I truly believe that in my lifetime the koala will become
extinct unless we do something," said Deborah Tabarat,
executive director of the foundation.

Koalas are protected by law but the eucalyptus trees
they call home and which provide their only source of
food are not.

There are about 100,000 koalas in Australia, down from an
estimated seven to 10 million at the time of white
settlement in 1788. In the 1920s, three million koalas were
shot for their fur.

Tabarat said the major problem facing koalas was that the
majority of Australia's 20 million people and the majority
of the koala population both call Australia's eastern states
home. Eastern koalas extinct in 15 years? She said that with
80 percent of Australia's east coast temperate forests
destroyed and continued rapid urbanization, koalas along the
eastern seaboard could be extinct in 15 years.

"This animal is in serious trouble," said Tabarat. "In 15
years you will not see a koala west of the divide," she
said, referring to the Great Australian Divide, mountains
that divide east coast Australia from its rural outback.
Wild koalas only exist in four of Australia's six states:
Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia.

The marsupial has no natural predator, but has been in
decline for decades due to urban sprawl and from car
accidents and dog attacks. More than 4,000 koalas are killed
each year by dogs and cars, the foundation says.

The most robust koala population on the Australian mainland
exists in southeast Queensland and numbers about 10,000, but
it too faces extinction in 15 years, said Tabarat. Southeast
Queensland is experiencing the most rapid population growth
of any part of Australia. Over the past eight years, 16,000
koalas in the area died in accidents with cars or dog
attacks and another 10,000 injured koalas probably died in
the bush, said Tabarat. Fussy eaters

Diminishing habitat has a greater affect on koalas than most
animals. Koalas live in tall eucalyptus trees and low
eucalyptus woodlands, but they are fussy eaters. There are
about 600 species of eucalyptus in Australia, but koalas
only eat about 120, with koalas in specific areas eating
only four to six different types.

An adult koala eats up to one kilogram of leaves each night.

Like a pasture for sheep, a eucalyptus forest or woodland
can only support a certain number of koalas, resulting in
starving koalas in over-populated habitats or destroyed
habitats. A koala population explosion on Australia's remote
Kangaroo Island off the south coast has prompted calls for
20,000 koalas to be shot to stop them destroying their
habitat. The island has some 30,000 koalas struggling to
survive. Koalas are also very social animals, living in
stable societies that tend to remain in a small "home
range," which means they require habitats large enough to
support a healthy population and to allow for expansion by
maturing young koalas.

"People knock down all the scrub and leave a couple of trees
and think koalas will be okay," said Tabarat. "We might be
looking at koalas who are living happily in the bush but you
might actually be looking at an extinct population," she
said. "They haven't got any way of going out of their little
home range, mating with someone then coming home pregnant.
They just sit there, eke their time out, and then the bush
will go silent."

Copyright 2004 Reuters Limited.

You state in part, "in a similar way to the way most
marsupials don't stand up to competition with placental
mammals. It would be a war of technology - the humans would
obliterate the therapsids and archosaurs much as they are
wiping out most of the modern large predators - by
destroying or occupying their habitat - and by shooting
them. The humans
- and their ecosystem - would win because they have better
technology on a range of fronts."

Mr. Tyler, you are correct about humans technologically
outcompeting marsupials on all fronts. Although I
haven't checked the status of other marsupials certainly
the koala is being outcompeted and there are a number of
reasons for this.

I live in one of the most highly "technologically" congested
areas in the world and believe me quality of life
considerations aren't taken into consideration...money is.
It's interesting how you dichotimize between the ecosystem
of marsupials and placental mammals. In the past many other
animals became extinct or close to extinction because of
humans shooting them for their fur, tusks, body parts, etc.
In fact, many other animals and plants face extinction
besides marsupials because of rampant human development and
human's "technological prowess".

I hesitate to call it "technological skill'" because in my
view it is being misapplied. This is through no "fault" of
our own as we are just following the dictates of Darwinian
evolution and we happen to be the Alpha animal which can
destroy anything. But this does potentially have
consequences in the long term..this rampant development of
our "technological prowess".

Many have remarked on the destruction of the rain forests
and the potentially medically and scientifically valuable
specimens in them, not to mention the rain forests provide a
certain percentage of life giving oxygen to our atmosphere.
The more rampant development of our "technological prowess"
without regards to the environment (our environment),
demographics of population, service needs, water, potential
pathologies which result from such conditions, etc, etc. we
will indeed be not only negatively effecting the ecosystem
of marsupials and other plants and animals but ourselves.

In fact, I think we've already arrived there Mr. Tyler.
There are over 6 billion people on earth and overpopulation
is a serious threat. Now perhaps you think such concerns
aren't warranted as eventually massive natural selection
will kick in and wipe out a signifigant percentage of the
human race. But if that happens it seems our "technological
prowess" will have somewhat backfired on us and the
consequences are unpredictable.

Michael Ragland

"It's uncertain whether intelligence has any long term
survival value." Stephen Hawking
 
Michael Ragland <[email protected]> wrote or quoted:

> [...] we will indeed be not only negatively effecting the
> ecosystem of marsupials and other plants and animals but
> ourselves.
>
> In fact, I think we've already arrived there Mr. Tyler.
> There are over 6 billion people on earth and
> overpopulation is a serious threat. Now perhaps you think
> such concerns aren't warranted as eventually massive
> natural selection will kick in and wipe out a signifigant
> percentage of the human race. But if that happens it seems
> our "technological prowess" will have somewhat backfired
> on us and the consequences are unpredictable.

I don't forsee much in the way of population crashes.

I found an interesting graph relating to human population
growth through 2150 recently:

n_Growth.htm They say:

``In 2000, the world had 6.1 billion human inhabitants. This
number could rise to more than 9 billion in the next 50
years. For the last 50 years, world population multiplied
more rapidly than ever before, and more rapidly than it will
ever grow in the future.''

Their projections seem fairly realistic to me - though
perhaps they are on the pessimistic side - surely the world
population will reach 11 billion *well* before 2150.
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ [email protected] Remove
lock to reply.
 
Guy Hoelzer <[email protected]> wrote:

> >> EK:- Do you mean
> >> 1. "reproduced by each parent into one population." in
> >> a single mating or
> >> 2. "reproduced by each parent into one population."
> >> throughout the lifetime of the organism?

> > JE:- Obviously, you would have to exclude 1. The total
> > number of fertile forms reproduced into the same
> > population by one parent may not be completed until well
> > after that parent has died. Plants can leave infertile
> > embryos (seeds) dormant for centuries. They may end up
> > becoming fertile forms many years after the death of the
> > parent plant. The total number of fertile forms
> > reproduced by a Darwinian selectee over its lifetime
> > just is a good approximation.

> GH An approximation? This seems like a major departure
> from your long standing insistence that this is exactly
> the Darwinian fitness.

JE:- I defined Darwinian fitness in box 1. Logically this
definition allows for a parent to die before all of its
infertile reproductives reach fertile adulthood. Mostly
this is not the case so mostly, the total number of fertile
forms raised to fertile adulthood within the same
population over just a parents lifespan is only a good
approximation. The totals remains FINITE within both the
definition and its approximation so both remain testable
suppositions of nature.

> GH:- I have consistently argued that there can never be an
> exact definition of fitness, because I see fitness as
> merely a heuristically useful concept, demanding a variety
> of operational definitions in its application, rather than
> something that actually exists, demanding a single
> accurate definition.

JE:- I have consistently argued that fitness is an
OBJECTIVE ABSOLUTE ASSUMPTION OF NATURE upon which all
evolutionary theory is based and upon which the
refutability and verification of ANY theory of evolution
depends. I have unambiguously defined fitness and given an
experimental confirmation of that definition that only
requires a single level of selection. You have denied that
selection can be halted within any natural population using
the exp. provided only because for you, multi levels of
selection exist in nature. You will not even consider a
single unit alternative yet you offer no refutable position
on this matter. In short, you wish to substitute just your
hand waving exercise of only heuristic multi levels of
fitness for a more simple, objective, testable and a more
simple single level theory of fitness. What you keep on
offering here is just, bad science.

>snip<

Respectfully,

John Edser Independent Researcher

PO Box 266 Church Pt NSW 2105 Australia

[email protected]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom Back