Selection vs. Elimination

-
Evolutionists don't seem to be able to grasp the difference between a process of selection and one of elimination.

From "What Evolution Is" page 117:

What Darwin called natural selection is actually a process of elimination.

Page 118:

Do selection and elimination differ in their evolutionary consequences? This question never seems to have been raised in the evolutionary literature. A process of selection would have a concrete objective, the determination of the “best” or “fittest” phenotype. Only a relatively few individuals in a given generation would qualify and survive the selection procedure. That small sample would be only to be able to preserve only a small amount of the whole variance of the parent population. Such survival selection would be highly restrained.

By contrast, mere elimination of the less fit might permit the survival of a rather large number of individuals because they have no obvious deficiencies in fitness. Such a large sample would provide, for instance, the needed material for the exercise of sexual selection. This also explains why survival is so uneven from season to season. The percentage of the less fit would depend on the severity of each year’s environmental conditions.

The point is evos spew that selecting for A is the same as eliminating everything but A. And this is true, however it is irrelevant with respect to natural selection. With natural selection the eliminated class is very small so it would be like eliminating Q and Z. Eliminating Q and Z is very different than selecting A.