Quoted message said:JE:- It is exactly that point we are debating. <snip> In reality, the rule [Hamilton's] is not
constrained until you put one of your constraints within it, explicitly as a GENERAL term. Can I
suggest absolute organism fitness as this missing general constraint?
PF:-
It would please me if you stopped beating around the bush (of theoretical complaint) and instead
regularly spelled-out (for all to see) "exactly that (by you believed to be more exact - though in
relation to reality absurdely exact ["exact" from "ex"+"act" ~= non interactive]) point" of yours
Quoted message said:snip<
1 x "absolute organism fitness" = 1 x *grandchild* (proposed since it is 'more to The Point' than
"fertile offspring"😉.
JE:- You simply refuse to understand what I wrote. I defined absolute fitness. This definition
becomes a _part_ of _one_ testable Darwinian theory. I can do more than that. Your view that one
unit of absolute fitness = one grandchild is not my view, it is yours. One quanta of fitness is one
fertile form reproduced, no exceptions, in Darwin's, view. if you wish to develop your view of
absolute fitness, then fine, go ahead and do so. At the moment you have not defined anything and
have never produced a testable view of evolution.
Best Wishes, John Edser Independent Researcher
PO Box 266 Church Pt NSW 2105 Australia
[email hidden]