From: the_thompsons@earthlink.net   
      
   Martin Harran wrote:   
   > 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.   
      
   OK, I am glad you wrote that; I understand now why we seem to be   
   speaking at cross purposes.   
      
   The problem is that you don't know what natural selection is. If you   
   wrote that on an exam in response to "Explain natural selection" I'm   
   pretty certain you'd get zero points.   
      
   So here's the quickie version:   
      
   Natural selection is differential reproductive success. Reproductive   
   success is usually approached in one of two ways. Absolute reproductive   
   success (or absolute fitness) is generally the number of offspring you   
   leave behind. Relative reproductive success (relative fitness) is the   
   proportion of the following generation you produce, relative to the   
   _most successful_ individuals in the population. If at all possible   
   these numbers are assigned to genotypes rather than phenotypes, but   
   phenotypes are much easier. It works fine for demonstration purposes,   
   though. Consider a population of 100 individuals, and we're interested   
   in a single gene with two alleles. Our genotypes are   
      
   AA        Aa        aa   
      
   Let's assume these genotypes occur in the following frequencies in the   
   population and if population size (N)=100, the number of individuals of   
   those genotypes can be seen in the second row:   
      
   AA        Aa        aa   
   0.25      0.5       0.25   
   25        50        25   
      
   Now in the absence of natural selection (or other factors that drive   
   evolution like drift or nonrandom mating) this is a stable population.   
   These frequencies won't change from generation to generation. However if   
   NS is occurring one or more genotype will be favored at the expense of   
   the others.   
      
   If we say the homozygous recessive has an advantage we might see the   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)