Paul Nelson doesn't deny that natural selection is a real phenomenon. He may be an IDiot (and a YEC) but he's not THAT stupid. On the other hand, one didn't have to wait too long before getting confirmation that some other IDiots really are THAT stupid.
And guess what? They are allowed to post on the main Discovery Institute blog, Evolution News & Views (sic)!!! You have to read How "Real" Is Natural Selection? by Tom Bethell ... otherwise you'd never believe me.
Here's what Tom Bethell says about natural selection.
Sometimes, the relationship between a variant form and the environment is such that the variant increases, or multiplies. Best known case: dark moths camouflaged against dark tree trunks. The speckled variety becomes conspicuous and is more likely to get eaten.Here's a few quick hints for Tom Bethell—not that I really expect him to read them. First, learn the scientific definition of evolution: What Is Evolution?. It will help you understand why the increase in frequency of variant moths and resistant bacteria really is evolution. (Hint: populations evolve, not individuals. This is basic high school biology.)
The theory that has been confirmed here is simply that in this environment, with sharp-eyed predator birds, camouflage is helpful. It does not explain how the moths appeared in the first place.
The moth evidence was publicized in the 1950s by Bernard Kettlewell. Its frequent invocation since then -- including by Coyne quite recently -- goes to show how paltry the evidence for NS is.
An analogous situation arises with varieties of bacteria that are immune to antibiotics. The immune varieties are suddenly "fit" and so they survive. But the word "adaptation" is misleading because the immune varieties have to appear first. They don't "adapt," or reshape themselves in recognition of the suddenly hostile environment. They are not like people who "adapt" to cold weather by putting on overcoats. They are like people who accidentally had overcoats on before the cold snap came.
NS is not supposed to be an explanation of how we get more of something; a dark moth, for example. It's supposed to show how the moth itself arose. And that is what the Darwinists have never been able to demonstrate; not just with moths but with anything else. That's why I hesitate to call NS "real." Well, I guess it is, as long as it's defined narrowly enough.
Second, read up on the definition of adaptation as it applies to evolution by natural selection. This will prevent you from looking foolish in the future.
Third, read about the fluctuation test or the Luria-Delbück Experiment done in 1943. (That's almost 70 years ago.) Luria and Delbück won a Nobel Prize, in part for this work. What they did was establish the very thing that you (Tom Behtell) find mysterious; namely, the origin of variants.