From: martinharran@gmail.com   
      
   On Thu, 29 Jan 2026 00:43:20 -0500, Chris Thompson   
    wrote:   
      
   >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   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)