natural selection is wrong

Seems to me like the kind of wonky thinking one expects from a philosophy department.Do you include lightning strikes in a theory related to the motion of balls along a plane? No, of course you don't. That's not to say they won't happen, just that they're not what your dealing with.Natural selection is not the whole of evolution and it's path is often altered by events outside of it's scope - most famously by a bloody great asteroid hitting the earth. Natural selection is a description of the driving mechanism - and it's the one that we're interested in because it is capable of explaining the emergence of apparent design, of complexity and of ecological fitness. Lightning strikes are not included because they have no explanatory power.

Sure they are - they select organisms into two groups: those struck by lightning, and those not.

No, actually I'm not.There are an awful lot of potential classes for selection, we ignore them in natural selection because random processes are not useful in explaining biological diversity, not because they don't select.

Yup. That's why it isn't part of Natural Selection. However there is still selection, it just isn't selection affected by the alleles. I agree. The idea is stupid.