The unity of fitness

Philosophy of Science 76 (5):750-761 (2009)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

It has been argued that biological fitness cannot be defined as expected number of offspring in all contexts. Some authors argue that fitness therefore merely satisfies a common schema or that no unified mathematical characterization of fitness is possible. I argue that comparative fitness must be relativized to an evolutionary effect; thus relativized, fitness can be given a unitary mathematical characterization in terms of probabilities of producing offspring and other effects. Such fitnesses will sometimes be defined in terms of probabilities of effects occurring over the long term, but these probabilities nevertheless concern effects occurring over the short term. †To contact the author, please write to: Department of Philosophy, University of Alabama at Birmingham, HB 414A, 900 13th Street South, Birmingham, AL 35294‐1260; e‐mail: [email protected].

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 106,148

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Analytics

Added to PP
2009-01-28

Downloads
136 (#171,908)

6 months
10 (#382,924)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Marshall Abrams
University of Alabama, Birmingham

References found in this work

Complexity and the Function of Mind in Nature.Peter Godfrey-Smith (ed.) - 1996 - New York: Cambridge University Press.
Conceptual Issues in Evolutionary Biology.Elliott Sober (ed.) - 1994 - The Mit Press. Bradford Books.
The propensity interpretation of fitness.Susan K. Mills & John H. Beatty - 1979 - Philosophy of Science 46 (2):263-286.

View all 16 references / Add more references