Well, I suggest you read his quote properly. This is what he states ---> for such could not have been produced through natural selection. He rejects something because it could not be reproduced through natural selection. That makes natural selection absolutely necessary for his theory.
And your comments are nonsensical. Individuals do not evolve(in biological terms). Talk about smarts and changing tires.
If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species...
Geez... What is it about you that can't read? Change and selection are not the same process. Change does not occur because of selection or in order to meet the requirements of selection. Change occurs for a number of different reasons, some of which we underrstand and some of which we don't. Changes can result in elimination from the reproductive pool, enhanced reproductive capacity, or they can be neutral in their effect on reproduction. What is so hard about understanding that?
Changes do happen to individuals, and yes, it is possible for individuals to undergo change prior to conception, during conception, or to pass on mutations that occur during adulthood.