From: martinharran@gmail.com   
      
   On Wed, 28 Jan 2026 00:00:53 -0500, Chris Thompson   
    wrote:   
      
   >Martin Harran wrote:   
   >> On Sun, 25 Jan 2026 22:48:49 -0500, Chris Thompson   
   >>  wrote:   
   >>   
   >>> Martin Harran wrote:   
   >>>> On Thu, 22 Jan 2026 22:34:44 -0500, Chris Thompson   
   >>>>  wrote:   
   >>>>   
   >>>>> Martin Harran wrote:   
   >>>>>> On Wed, 21 Jan 2026 09:57:04 -0800, Vincent Maycock   
   >>>>>>  wrote:   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> On Wed, 21 Jan 2026 16:11:02 +0000, Martin Harran   
   >>>>>>>  wrote:   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> snip   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> The ToE was developed   
   >>>>>>>> inside Darwin's head, Natural Selection is not something we can   
   >>>>>>>> directly examine by  putting it inside a test tube or picking up to   
   >>>>>>>> measure or weigh - it is an intellectual explanation for what we see   
   >>>>>>>> happening in evolution.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Wow wow wow wow.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> And just like that, millions of hours of field studies and thousands of   
   >>>>> peer-reviewed articles go POOF!   
   >>>>   
   >>>> As Thomas Edison put it "Genius is one percent inspiration,   
   >>>> ninety-nine percent perspiration." Darwin's identification of NS was   
   >>>> pure inspiration, prompting Huxley to declare"How incredibly stupid   
   >>>> not to have thought of that.". That inspiration, however, did not come   
   >>>> out of the blue, it came from the "perspiration" of many years of   
   >>>> studying evolution.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> The same applies to Lemaitre's identification of the Big Bang; it too   
   >>>> was inspiration after the "perspiration" of slogging through the works   
   >>>> of Einstein and Hubble; or Mnedel whose inspired identification of   
   >>>> traits working in pairs came from years of experimenting with peas.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> It seems to me that your remarks would be better pointed to Vincent   
   >>>> who doesn't seem to regard perspiration as particularly necessary.   
   >>>   
   >>> I don't think so. Vincent was not the one who asserted we cannot   
   >>> directly observe and measure natural selection.   
   >>   
   >> Nor did *I* say we could not observe it - on the contrary, I referred   
   >> to "what we see happening in evolution."   
   >>   
   >   
   >"Natural Selection is not something we can   
   >directly examine by  putting it inside a test tube or picking up to   
   >measure or weigh..."   
   >   
   >So when you say we cannot directly examine or measure natural selection   
   >it means we can directly examine and measure natural selection.   
      
   We can directly and measure the *impact* of natural election but we   
   cannot directly examine NS itself.   
      
   For example, we can carry out a detailed physiological examination of   
   humans, chimps and bonobos and determine how much they physiologically   
   have in common.  We can directly examine their DNA and measure how   
   little difference there is between them. Both of those examinations   
   lead us to conclude that they are all descended from a common   
   ancestor. But that conclusion is a *logical* one i.e. one arrived at   
   using our intellect, not one found in a test tube or using some sort   
   of weighing or measuring device.   
      
   In common with just about everyone else here on the side of science, I   
   regard science as not any sort of 'proof', it is *explanations* that   
   fit all the evidence we have and that may change if we get more   
   evidence. You seem to struggle with that.   
      
   >   
   >I'm glad we cleared that up.   
      
   I shouldn't really have to say this yet again but as you seem   
   particularly prone to misunderstanding me, I should perhaps make clear   
   that what I am saying here does not undermine or detract from  what   
   science has figured out about evolution and the role of Natural   
   Selection.  I accept those conclusions as the best possible   
   explanation of whet we can see and have regularly dismissed the   
   arguments put forward by other religious believers who try to dismiss   
   those scientific explanations without offering anything in their   
   place.   
      
   >   
   >Chris   
   >   
   >   
   >>> That assertion, to put   
   >>> it mildly, is utter bollocks.   
   >>   
   >> It would be if I had made it.   
   >>   
   >> Yet again, I wish people would criticise things I said rather than   
   >> things I didn't say.   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>>   
   >>> Chris   
   >>>   
   >>>   
   >>>> Questions have been asked about the existence of God for thousands of   
   >>>> years and millions of words have been published - Aquinas wrote about   
   >>>> 1.8 million in Summa Theologica alone. Vincent reckons that can all be   
   >>>> just ignored, that he can figure it out by simply reading one book   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)