Natural Selection- "It's the FEEDBACK, stupid"

-
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.

EvoTARD ignorance at its finest has "whatever is good enough to survive and reproduces", ie the "feedback" with respect to natural selection, as some sort of magical mechanism that can produce complex adaptations. 

Then there is the fact that the fittest of any population is still that same type of organism- the fittest clown fish is still a clown fish; the fittest bull shark is still a bull shark; the fittest humans are all still human. The point is that natural selection is a mechanism that eliminates the weak but keeps the type (body plan) intact. For example, natural selection isn't a driving force that can produce land animals from fully aquatic populations. The "feedback" is impotent in that respect.

But it is funny watching evoTARDs shout into the wind that there's is a magical feedback aided by father time that we just cannot comprehend...