I’ve read about a third of the article, and haven’t found anything compelling in it yet. Yes, one can argue about what constitutes a trait and what, exactly, is being selected for. But none of that comes close to undermining natural selection; it doesn’t even scratch a shallow trench around it. Selection is still taking place, the moderator is still differential reproductive success, and over time genes which provide some advantage are favored over those that don’t.

I may keep reading, but I’m getting bored with what seems to be deliberate obsfuscation and willful ignorance on the part of the authors. And I have other things to do.

Show me a problem in the biological realm that natural selection fails to explain, and offer an alternative to natural selection that does explain it, or explains it better, and maybe I’ll perk up. But so far, the author’s argument sounds like an uber-pedantic one similar to discerning whether a zebra is a white animal with black stripes, or a black animal with white stripes, an exercise in trait-boundary gerrymandering that probably sounds profound as hell after several beers, but turns out to be sophmorically empty the following morning, although it may leave a lingering headache.