So, in the example being discussed, if environmental conditions change, the beetles will find different variations useful and those beetles that carry those variations will have a better chance of surviving than other ones that do not. The shorthand way to express this is to say that different populations of beetle will be selected.
Exactly. This is the explanation that fits the observation perfectly: a fairly straight-forward application of the concept of natural selection as accepted by biologists, ecologists, and others of that ilk, including me. Because of the sensitivity to environmental change of the organisms in question, subtle differences in conditions at different microsites along an ecological gradient either select
for or select
against (depending on how you want to look at it) different species of this subfamily, thus changing the guild composition at each location. I'm not sure how fine-grained the studies have been, but certainly in general terms this is the case - hence their utility for biodiversity studies.
And therein lies the rub: Elmer has, in multiple threads, completely discounted the concept of natural selection. He terms it vacuous, empty, circular, and many other epithets. Although he has yet to provide any substance supporting those assertions beyond rhetoric and constant repetition, all the conversations thus far have degenerated into little more than "is too", "is not" infantile posturing. So my goal with my example was to present a quite replicable (and replicated) observation, and then ask him to provide an explanation or mechanism that explains the observation that is
better than natural selection. IOW, if natural selection is meaningless scientifically, then there must be
another explanation for the observation. As you can see from the discussion up to this point, Elmer is doing his absolute best to avoid providing that. It surely must give any reader cause to believe there is no such explanation.
I plan on giving it one more go-around, then bagging the conversation with the conclusion that there is nothing of substance on the other side.