[VadeRetro]

The compelling evidence that we need a "who" rests in the wording of those "in the know". In order for something to "select" something, doesn't it make sense that something has to exist to do the selecting?

Argument from semantics. In the actual meat of Darwin's book, he makes clear what he means by natural selection. Nature is not an anthropomorphic deity and none are required. It is enough that some make it because of variations that set them somewhat apart from those that don't. That's all it is.

Willful misinterpretation is a form of lying. You really ought to think about how this looks. Anybody who would be influenced to discard science based upon what you're doing here has the critical faculties of a ham sandwich.

[Texas Eagle]

Argument from semantics. In the actual meat of Darwin's book, he makes clear what he means by natural selection. Nature is not an anthropomorphic deity and none are required. It is enough that some make it because of variations that set them somewhat apart from those that don't. That's all it is. Willful misinterpretation is a form of lying. You really ought to think about how this looks. Anybody who would be influenced to discard science based upon what you're doing here has the critical faculties of a ham sandwich.

Hey. If you don't know, just say so. It's okay. I won't think any less of you.

As if that was possible.

Just kidding! I think mighty highly of you and your fellow accidents.