Contrary to what evolutionists think, natural selection doesn't create populations, it simply stablizes them. Adaptive traits are self-generated in each member of a population. This can happen during development or even later in life. Some of these traits can be heritable.
The reason evolutionists put so much emphasis on natural selection is because they they need NS to be the cause of evolution.. To them, the cause of evolution cannot be variation, because if variation itself is adaptive, it makes natural selection redundant as an adaptor. The cause of evolutionary change is either populational via natural selection, or it's individual via self-emergent mechanisms such as epigenetics, horizontal gene transfer and others.
The first two sentences are illogical. Making a thing redundant is the opposite of making it necessary.
Unfortunately for evolutionists, the real cause of evolution is whatever is responsible for generating variation.
The real cause of variation is recombination. (Mutation is flawed recombination.) That is, at the genetic level. Now at the level of the actual lifeform produced, environment plays an interactive role. Some genes may or may not be expressed, although they are present.
For example, one may obtain calloused hands by working with a shovel. The information is present, and when it is appropriate, it will be expressed. Both Lamarckism and Darwinism rely upon misunderstandings and ignorance of how recombination & gene expression account for variation.
If anyone is interested in a great scientifc critique of natural selection, look no further than the following book by Robert Reid:
Of all the books I have, this is probably the most impressive. It's truly a stunningly brilliant book, in my opinion. It's a bit pricey, but it's absolutely worth it. You can get an idea of its flavor by clicking the "search inside this book" link.... or the overview puts it all in a nutshell quite nicely:
"In Biological Emergences, Robert Reid argues that natural selection is not the cause of evolution. He writes that the causes of variations, which he refers to as natural experiments, are independent of natural selection; indeed, he suggests, natural selection may get in the way of evolution. Reid proposes an alternative theory to explain how emergent novelties are generated and under what conditions they can overcome the resistance of natural selection. He suggests that what causes innovative variation causes evolution, and that these phenomena are environmental as well as organismal.
After an extended critique of selectionism, Reid constructs an emergence theory of evolution, first examining the evidence in three causal arenas of emergent evolution: symbiosis/association, evolutionary physiology/behavior, and developmental evolution. Based on this evidence of causation, he proposes some working hypotheses, examining mechanisms and processes common to all three arenas, and arrives at a theoretical framework that accounts for generative mechanisms and emergent qualities. Without selectionism, Reid argues, evolutionary innovation can more easily be integrated into a general thesis. Finally, Reid proposes a biological synthesis of rapid emergent evolutionary phases and the prolonged, dynamically stable, non-evolutionary phases imposed by natural selection."
Thanks, but I'll probably pass. I did as you suggested and "searched inside" for "lamarck".
This book looks like little more than an attempt to tweak Lamarckism and prepare so it'll be ready & waiting when people come to realize how miserably Darwinism has failed. I suspect "developmental evolution" is just an euphemism for recap, one of the ugliest doctrines ever promoted. If I'm correct, this is just a handbook for the necromancy of dead ideas. I've already seen too much necromancy in evolutionsim to suit me.
Now the book may contain some good arguments against natural selection, but Lamarckism was never incompatible with anything Darwin proposed. Natural selection, if redundant, would still serve quite nicely as a backup for difficult observations. A very versatile backup, capable of explaining any past events. Any.
on Page 419:
"... the groups already in occupation of them. This is more a matter of ecological succession than evolution, yet it crudely recapitulates evolutionary history. ..."
too easy to predict. Doubletalk notwithstanding, this is what it is.