I argue that "natural selection" is not something you can prove, it is assumed that the changes in species are the result of natural slection, ie. by naturalists mechanisms.
But it's not assumed. It's defined that way - "natural selection" is the name given to the observation that, in every species on Earth, more individuals are born each generation than can possibly survive to reproductive adulthood, and that those that do survive and reproduce are not simply lucky, but survive by virtue of their unique traits and adaptations to their environment.
Nobody's doing the choosing, nobody's doing the selecting. Organisms are
selecting themselves due to the (potentially fatal) interaction of the environment with their unique traits.
It's like asking - "if a meteor from outer space lands on your house and destroys you, who is guilty of your murder?" No one is. You're ascribing agency where none is present. Many things in the universe happen on their own, not because some entity willed them to occur. That is how natural selection happens. Nobody is doing the selecting; organisms are simply being selected.
Can you prove me wrong and you right? If so how.
If we can demonstrate that natural mechanisms can account for all the information present in DNA - and we can, and have - then your position may not be
wrong but there's no reason to consider it
right.
But even if the changes occur, which I agree they do, science cannot prove they are by natural means or supenatural means.
If natural means are sufficient, then what reason is there to believe in supernatural means? If there are no reasons to think that something is supernatural, why think that it is?
™ Version 4.2
(1)