@shanaqui of course natural selection isn't the whole story! There's drift, gene flow, etc. Oh and epigenetic stuff, which there's some debate on how exactly it fits into the overarching theory of evolution.
@susannah I should've said; I mean I'm looking specifically for evidence to support "it might be wrong". (I'm doing a science degree, the other stuff is not news to me.)
@susannah That's my understanding too. I wish he'd tell me his sources so I can actually understand where he's coming from, instead of me saying "but natural selection does fit with what he can observe (if not on its own)" and him saying "no". Raaargh.
(Look at that, my impostor syndrome is playing merry hell.)
@shanaqui Ugh, I'm so sorry! I hate when that happens - I remember a time someone insisted my advice about their statistics problem was wrong while claiming that it is possible for probabilities to sum to more than 1. Even though I knew a lot more than they did, I spent TWO DAYS re-reading stats books to convince myself I wasn't wrong.
@shanaqui And I'm sorry if I came across as patronizing or in any way poked imposter syndrome buttons for you.
@susannah Nope, you were fine! It's this particular person who really keeps pushing my buttons, somehow.
(Like, despite capitulating and rephrasing my post, I still think that evolution by natural selection matches all our observations of the world. Not alone, but I didn't SAY it did so alone.)
@shanaqui it might be wrong is a bit vague. Like "it never happens" or "sometimes natural selection isnt the force driving differentiation"? I am not aware of any work saying it never happens, though neutral theory argues that other forces (esp drift) explain much of what we see. Maybe some of the early proponents took stronger stances, but I don't think anyone would today.