There are far more individual differences than are generally recognized.
I have no idea what this is supposed to mean.
It's entirely possible that every gene in the genome creates a difference and it is certain that every experience of every individual affects what you call "fitness'.
So we can add genetics to the ever growing list of things you don't know and understand. Different genes DO different things.
Experience expressed as behavior through consciousness in other species can be far more important to survival than any gift with which the individual was born.
Possibly, but that doesn't eliminate the validity of fitness or mean that some members of a population don't have a greater propensity of increased reproduction.
Old whales get old by having experience because they lose their stamina and the edge is removed from their strength and speed. Experience also tells the young where to go and when to go there. It tells everybody what to do because it is a major component of consciousness which drives behavior in every other species than what I call homo omnisciencis.
Why you bother to insist on using a seemingly made up and unrecognized taxon that neither explains nor demonstrates anything is a symptom of the problem here. I note also that the direction this meander is taking clearly indicates that you have no idea what biological fitness is or what it tells us.
While each individual of other species is almost a carbon copy of each other their consciousness is not.
Nonsense. This is just your typical baseless speculation raised up to fact once again.
There are slight variations caused by happenstance, mutation, genetics etc but they each have different knowledge sets and these knowledge sets are influenced by genetics and experience.
Yes, population have variation. That variation is expressed as fitness in the context of interaction with the environment. Fitness is not a personal judgement of the quality of an individual from a moral position.
Remember other species model reality and their brain/ body is already a reflection of reality.
How can I remember what is not an established fact anywhere in order to be remembered. Many living things don't have brains.
Their language reflects this same reality and is specific to each species. Beavers don't do waggle dances and wolves don't chirp.
More meaningless claims about things that are not established facts. I can say that rocks have ancient rock language and taught the bees their waggle dance if we are still playing this game of make **** up and call it reality.
Your questions involve individual outcomes and outcomes aren't dependent so much on traits and characteristics as the luck of the draw.
No. Sorry. These outcomes are dependent on the genetic variation of the population. Random events can intercede in specific examples, but that does not alter the outcomes and evidence from which fitness is found.
Of course, you believe the luck of the draw is determined by trats and abilities but I do not.
Stop telling me what I believe. How could you even know? It is not luck of the draw. As to what you believe, it is often all over the place but consistently at odds with evidence, experiment, logic or reason.
If you twist my arm I might agree that all else being equal 100 fast rabbits have a better chance of surviving 100 foxes than 100 slow rabbits, but all else can never be equal.
I could care less what nonsensical contrivances you might agree to in order to avoid a rational review of this and the recognition that you don't really have the knowledge or understanding to render informed opinions here.
Throwing millions of foxes and millions of rabbits into the equation will not mean that the surviving rabbits are faster, smarter, or more alert. It just means rabbits taste good to foxes. You would have to analyze every single encounter between every fox and every rabbit as well as every near encounter to even begin to understand how "fitness" might not affect survivability. You'd have to rate tens of thousands of traits of both species and then define these traits in scientific terms. You've have to know how different traits interact and cancel one another. It would be staggeringly complex but then you would have the ability to predict which rabbits survive. With this knowledge you could then hypothesize that fitness leads to a gradual change in species.
I just stopped reading. It seems like a self-serving rambling to no useful end.
There is no such thing as fitness however.
Fortunately, your erroneous declaration here has no impact on this.
We are simply observing the nature of some characteristics to work against specific genes in specific situations. If you give the amount of arsenic that's enough to kill mice to a population of mice then 50% will die. The ones left are resistant to arsenic. ...So? It doesn't mean the dead mice were less fit, it means they couldn't handle their arsenic. Nature might sometimes poison half her population but the effect on the genome is random. It might promote the faster or smarter but it might have the opposite effect or virtually no effect at all on most of those tens of thousands of traits. Those mice that survive if released back into the population will have virtually no effect on the genome.
If half of population succumbs to a toxin and the other half doesn't, it has been established that it is not random chance and there are actual reasons for such an outcome.
Are you just making this ramble up as you go. You speak as if you have this vast experience and body of knowledge from omniscience, when clearly you haven't the first clue.
Each individual needs to be healthy and conscious. With these tools with which almost every individual starts his life they each have an identical chance of success all else being equal. They will simply thrive under different conditions and those that do reproduce will also have fit off spring.
Yes! Different conditions are a given in the real world but the changes tend to be a random walk until something big happens. This means and the evidence shows that there is little or no change in species until something big happens. I belief these "big things" are general or specific bottlenecks. I believe major changes in species (speciation events) tend to be specific bottlenecks imposed on species where the survivors are selected for unusual behavior.
In effect this is what breeding and agriculture are "an artificial imposition of a bottleneck". All animals with undesired characteristics are excluded by definition and barbed wire; they may as well have all died. It is this understanding that created human agriculture thousands of years ago.
You spent all this time writing this and didn't really address anything in my post. I have come to conclude that you don't give a **** what anyone posts and could care less what they say. What I think you feel is important is that you get your declarations and revealed truth to us stinky-footed bumpkins that you see as pathetically ignorant and mindless idiots with nothing useful to say.
A bottleneck is an event that causes a radical reduction in the numbers of a population and is often accompanied by a radical loss of genetic variation. It is not a speciation event. No one, I MEAN NO ONE, has shown it to be a speciation event.
The changes in a population selected by the environment are not random.
