Yes, and I was just asking where you got that from. “Classical fitness”, you say? So I guess Darwin? That’s all I wanted to know. But why use classical definitions when there are more accurate modern ones available? After all, you’re criticizing the OP for inaccuracy.
Once again, I use Darwinian fitness because I was responding to Normnature’s definition of “Darwinian fitness.” There are dozens of theories and formulas on how to best calculate fitness—all of which I am sure you’re aware, since you have studied it—but in the end it comes down to the numbers and not the “physical fitness” as per Normnature’s post.
Cooking also allows humans to eat meat. A dog can eat food right out of the garbage can because dogs and wolves have the most acidic stomachs of all mammals and their stomach acids kill most germs. If you ate spoiled meat, you would probably get an infection and die. Cooking kills most of the parasites and bacteria that flourish in meat and can be deadly to humans.
Hi troll, you do not know what the heck you are talking about. The acid formed in a dog’s stomach is no more acidic than that produced by humans. There are in fact cultures that eat meat as delicacies which I would regard as spoiled. We also have dishes where we do eat raw meat such as delicious beef carpaccio, and sushi. Humans, dogs and wolves, are all omnivores.
Cooking also allows humans to eat meat. A dog can eat food right out of the garbage can because dogs and wolves have the most acidic stomachs of all mammals and their stomach acids kill most germs. If you ate spoiled meat, you would probably get an infection and die. Cooking kills most of the parasites and bacteria that flourish in meat and can be deadly to humans.
Hi troll, you do not know what the heck you are talking about. The acid formed in a dog’s stomach is no more acidic than that produced by humans. There are in fact cultures that eat meat as delicacies which I would regard as spoiled. We also have dishes where we do eat raw meat such as delicious beef carpaccio, and sushi. Humans, dogs and wolves, are all omnivores.
Cooking also allows humans to eat meat. A dog can eat food right out of the garbage can because dogs and wolves have the most acidic stomachs of all mammals and their stomach acids kill most germs. If you ate spoiled meat, you would probably get an infection and die. Cooking kills most of the parasites and bacteria that flourish in meat and can be deadly to humans.
Hi troll, you do not know what the heck you are talking about. The acid formed in a dog’s stomach is no more acidic than that produced by humans. There are in fact cultures that eat meat as delicacies which I would regard as spoiled. We also have dishes where we do eat raw meat such as delicious beef carpaccio, and sushi. Humans, dogs and wolves, are all omnivores.
The “survival of the fittest” refers to the number of offspring. It has nothing to do with “physical fitness” (at least not in the way you’re describing here).
I’m not sure where you’re getting this from. You’re right that it doesn’t necessarily have to do with physical fitness, but according to wikipedia Darwin used it as a synonym for natural selection (after it was coined by Herbert Spencer). And natural selection concerns both survival and reproduction, not just reproduction. Sexual selection is closer to what you describe, although it also takes into account other factors than just number of offspring.
Genes are passed on only if an individual survives to reproduction. Though I would go beyond George’s assertion about fitness, in regards to human evolution. I would suggest that for humans, evolutionary fitness would include surviving beyond reproduction in order to promote the survival of the offspring (so that it can also, eventually reproduce, etc.).
There are many other animals who take care of their young ones. The reproductive success of any life is measured by the time it reaches the end of its reproductive period.
There are many other animals who take care of their young ones. The reproductive success of any life is measured by the time it reaches the end of its reproductive period.
In terms of evolution, most altricial species would soon lose out in “survival of the fittest”, if suddenly, none of the offspring had help in surviving the earliest stages of development.
In terms of evolution, most altricial species would soon lose out in “survival of the fittest”, if suddenly, none of the offspring had help in surviving the earliest stages of development.
But so would precocial ones since we’re talking about avian species in both cases. So what does that prove?
My point is that in calculating an individual’s evolutionary fitness, one should factor in, not only survival to reproduction, but also, survival beyond the reproduction of their offspring, if their survival then cntributes to a greater likelihood that the off spring will survive to reproduction, and so on, and so on.
Other than that, I have no idea what you’re up to.
