As far as I know, fitness only refers to reproductive success/rate. Since it's convenient and generally true to assume stasis (it generally all ends up the same after some time), I thought that in stead of reproductive rate it was better to talk about reproductive chance. That way the number of offspring can more easily be considered a trait, I think. Besides if not reproductive chance, I would still insist on a theory of reproductive success, over a theory of differential reproductive success, for basicly the same reasons as I've set out before.
Taz, I have always felt that the difference of replication and metabolism to be a false one even if protocol useful. Stu Kaufmann told me of the inspiration for some of his work was one up man-ship with Dyson and so again a Xerox is not a carbon copy yet the procedure could actually work yet it would take likely more than a lecture on physiological/transmission genetics to show this working in any way for everyone. I may be correct becasue the code can be better conscripted via Newton's laws with Maxwell "evolution: rather than the current expression of molecular diverification slotted biometrically.
The problem here is that in aruging the C side of E one can not even permit one faux pau to be part of the sentence lest sin also be thatsame part which makes commuincatioon in C/E mode neigh impossible. If this was the result then why try to start with unless only negative social consequences are desired??
There is DNA replication but diploid-haploids are not the same, not even by a sembelnce I should think. You did say that you may disagree with Dawkins generally and on this we may find the neutral evolution to not decieve each other with even without a seperated NOMA-NOva.
I have thought of the number of offspring as a trait as you point out but only in the context of variation divisions wider than current phenotype/genotype can turn. I do not see any formal use of numbers to organisms as that would be more the like I am not of Galileo which I am than the Kepler as it appears you could also have been in the corect by Pasteur but I have not read properly as per prior your "thesis".