Further to my recent postings on this topic, I solicit responses to the fact - as it seems to me, a practitioner - that Natural Selection is a metaphysical assumption which cannot be refuted.
For example here are two big things (ahem) which have no decent explanation from natural selection but which are (ahem) very obvious:
The existence of sexes (yes, I know WH Hamilton's ideas, but really nobody believes them).
The existence and attractiveness of prominent breasts in adult women (no decent theories which satisfy minimal biological constraints).
Yet - the failure to come-up with decent theories for such major bio-cultural phenomena as the sexes and large human breasts has not even scratched the fact that it is assumed that eventually some such theory will be discovered or invented.
In practice, Natural Selection cannot be refuted by science (or by evidence): it's validity is assumed - as is the case for all meta-scientific (metaphysical) assumptions.
[P.S Commenters please note: The above posting has exhausted the permissible quota of smutty double entendres / witty wordplay for this topic. ]