[extropy-chat] differential fitness
rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com
Sun Apr 1 19:42:15 UTC 2007
On 3/21/07, Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com> wrote:
> Fitness is such a mess of conceptual worms. I suggest a look at
> Individual phenotypic "fitness"--success at surviving and thriving in
> one's lifelong environment, especially a culturally modified one--is
> not *obviously* linked directly to number of fertile offspring a
> generation or two down the line. (Leaving aside individuals too
> dysfunctional by genotype or accident to reach maturity.) It might
> have been a million years ago, but how could we know that?
### I was using the term in the strictly biological sense. I know that
philosophers decry the definition as tautological, trivial,
unfalsifiable and consequently explanatorily infirm (to quote from the
page you linked to).
I don't mind. For biologists this definition works fine. Objections
from guys who maybe never even dissected a frog won't distract us.
More information about the extropy-chat