I’m anti-evolution, but there seems to be some serious holes in this guy’s arguments. Natural Selection really isn’t much in doubt, and he seems to have a fundamental misunderstanding of what scientists mean when they talk about it. For example:
““Nature selects” bears a presumption of inherent intelligence that assigns an operative agency external to the organism...”
That’s not accurate. Scientists don’t believe there is any intelligence involved in the mechanism of Natural Selection. If they did, they wouldn’t have half as much to debate with ID proponents!
Scientists also do not say that Natural Selection is the mechanism by which organisms have the ability to adapt. Mutation and normal genetic variation due to reproduction are the main mechanisms that they propose, while Natural Selection is a description of the process these mechanisms are involved in.
The author is reaching too far and has set up straw men to try to get there.
>>> The author is reaching too far and has set up straw men to try to get there.
That’s par for the course from the flat earthers.
Within a species it certainly occurs. But it is very much in doubt as a mechanism that creates new species; which is what Darwin is all about.
ML/NJ
I think the gist of what they are saying here, is that Natural Selection, as a mechanism in a scietific theory, doesn't explain physical phenomena that isn't already explained by other known mechanisms.
Take Huxley's example of the two plants. If one were to die, we can explain that death in terms of physical processes and known biological mechanisms. The same is true for the plant that is still alive. We can explain the pysical processes that keep it alive, with known mechanisms.
What physical process then, does Natural Selection explain.