Perhaps, but even if natural selection does actually occur in the wild, it still fails to explain evolution.
Natural selection merely culls an existing species or allows an existing species to prosper/multiply.
Natural selection per se adds no mutations to DNA nor does it create distinct new DNA from whole cloth; instead, natural selection only applies to existing species as they stand, leaving science to still answer the question as to the origin of those species.
Let's check your reasoning, shall we?
Natural selection merely culls an existing species or allows an existing species to prosper/multiply.
Sure, but you're *really* underestimating all the nuances and consequences when you try to dismiss that as "merely".
Natural selection per se adds no mutations to DNA nor does it create distinct new DNA from whole cloth;
Correct, it's the *mutations* that add the mutations to DNA and create distinct new DNA from whole cloth.
How could you possibly have overlooked that?
Even a children's primer to evolution points out that at its most fundamental evolution arises from the interaction of *TWO* processes: Variation (via mutation and other mechanisms) and natural selection.
So why are you now acting befuddled about how natural selection *alone* can't produce evolution? That's correct, but trivially so. It's natural selection in tandem with varation which runs the engine of evolution.
Were you not aware of this? Are you so ignorant of basic evolutionary theory? Are you so willing to denounce and "disprove" it even without knowing even the most basic things about it?
instead, natural selection only applies to existing species as they stand, leaving science to still answer the question as to the origin of those species.
Sigh. See above. I have led you to water, I can't make you drink.