Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9163 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,419 Year: 3,676/9,624 Month: 547/974 Week: 160/276 Day: 0/34 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Fitness: Hueristic or Fundamental to Biology?
JustinC
Member (Idle past 4865 days)
Posts: 624
From: Pittsburgh, PA, USA
Joined: 07-21-2003


Message 1 of 2 (391762)
03-27-2007 10:22 AM


The purpose of this thread is to state some of my objections to fitness and hopefully clear up some of my misconceptions about the concept.
I'd like to start with Quetzl's response to me in another thread, and go from there.
Right. I certainly haven't read anywhere that fitness is "just fecundity", so I'm not sure where you got that. Unfortunately, we're coming up to the end of this thread, so a long digression here may be counterproductive. Without getting into a very long discussion, suffice for the purposes of this thread I define fitness as the average lifetime contribution of individuals posessing a particular genotype to the population after one (or more) generations. In other words, not just the numbers of offspring that an individual can pump out, but the number of offspring carrying a particular genotype that themselves live to reproduce. So, simplistically, fitness of a genotype = (average fecundity) X (fraction surviving).
Obviously, there is a lot of detail and nuance (relative vs absolute fitness, for instance) that I'm leaving out, but that's the gist, and probably sufficient for this particular discussion.
Let me isolate his definition
So, simplistically, fitness of a genotype = (average fecundity) X (fraction surviving).
and
In other words, not just the numbers of offspring that an individual can pump out, but the number of offspring carrying a particular genotype that themselves live to reproduce.
Though it is simplistic it's a good starting point to state my objection.
For the opening post, i'll just state that this definition seems to be recursive in nature. In other words fitness is the ability to produce individuals that have the propensity to to produce individuals that have the propensity, etc.
(Fitness of a genotype)= (Average Fecundity)X(Fitness of offspring's genotypes)
The ability of the offspring to themselves produce offspring would have to be in the definition, or else we come to the absurd conclusion that producing a large number of sterile offspring is the "fit" thing to do.

AdminWounded
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 2 (391770)
03-27-2007 10:47 AM


Thread copied to the Fitness: Hueristic or Fundamental to Biology? thread in the Biological Evolution forum, this copy of the thread has been closed.

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024