If non-catchability is an inheritable trait, then why did selected fish that did not prove vulnerable to angling (were not caught) have offspring that were in fact vulnerable to angling?
This characteristic of offspring that were present in the new generation of the question above is due to the natural variability of all DNA (genetics) that are produced when male and female RNA strands are combined from the 'parents' to form DNA genes. Cloning could be an exception of this concept?
It is why children of the same parents do not look exactly alike except for identical twins: varability of genetic material. There can be a pretty wide range of physical 'apparences' or genetic features of offspring from the same parents. Vulneability of family members to different health issues is just one example. To my knowledge for all populations this "fairly" wide range of differences or characterestics of 'siblings' plays an important part of evolution and a big contributor to the concept of survival of the fittest to where the survivors are able to then reproduce to create offspring. Thus this is why the "selected" fish produced some or a percentage of the offspring that still had different vulnerablies to angling. It is similar to why you have a different intelligence or IQ than your siblings. Same parents different IQ of siblings. The other extrerme example of this is a child with Down Syndrome in a family of "normal" siblings.
