Not saying I don't agree with genetic variation ... because I do.

I just don't believe "non-catchability" is meaningful. Why? Because it is not measurable. It is null inherently. Vulnerability is a measurable ... and therein lies an important distinction. The uncaught fish can only pass on something that is measurable and that is what it does ... it passes to its progeny vulnerability that can be measured to be less than the parent generation. Just like ... I might add ... Philipp etal concluded in their paper.

To me, "non-catchability" is like a court argument that is pressing for a verdict. When it is applied as it has been here, there seems little concern for fidelity of the research. It's rhetorical slight of hand so to speak ... a word magician's trick ... swapping vulnerability(catchability) with "non-catchability". Honestly, I don't care what the jury decides. People often believe only what they want to believe. They cannot be dissuaded by reason. If that be the case, they are deserving of where that leads. A horse can be led to water, but to quench its thirst ... it must drink.

It isn't what we don't know that gives us trouble, it's what we know that ain't so - Will Rogers