From: the_thompsons@earthlink.net   
      
   Martin Harran wrote:   
   > 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   
   >> 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   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)