[jdmichal]

If I understand correctly, your basic argument is something along the lines of, "Eating is obviously extremely beneficial. Therefore eating must be selected for. Therefore your statement is false."

My rebuttal would be that you are looking at the wrong side of the equation. Eating is not selected for; not eating is selected against. So no, your argument does not counter my original claim. Such reworkings of the argument may seem petty, but they are centered around a deeper understanding of what exactly selection is and how it works.