Nothing passes me by, Wackers, never fear. Let's just say that she has to endure guilt by association, thanks to the cretin who wrote the piece. As for this survival of the fittest malarkey, Darwin, had he been alive today, would be turning in his grave. Natural selection has nothing to do with the survival of species or of individuals, nor of that vague category "the fittest", but everything to do with the non-random survival of heritable traits (as Darwin would have recognised it). It is all about differential survival of traits within species, not between species or between individuals. It's depressing (though, in a way, delicious, as ever) to see the likes of ignorami like Wacko and Keith pontificating about such things when, in fact, they haven't a clue what they'e on about. Howard's post is a star. It behoves scientists to find good ways of communicating with non-scientists, not, as in the case of the the pompous author of Wacko's silly piece, to diss the public for committing the grievous sin of not understanding jargon.