Should "for" be removed from here?

No, "select for" refers to the process of natural selection in which individuals with useful traits are more likely to successfully reproduce, and therefore pass on those traits. In such a case, evolution is said to have "selected for" that trait.

Whenever you have a choice between multiple alternatives and make a "selection" then you can be said to have selected "for" one thing and "against" the other(s).

If I am offered a choice between chocolate and vanilla ice cream, and choose chocolate, then I have "selected for" chocolate (and "against" vanilla).

This is not particularly applicable to claims, in evolutionary theory, that certain traits are "selected for." I am just illustrating the general linguistic use of the phrase "selected for."

That said, your question is a good one. What need is there to add the word "for?" Why not just say one thing was selected?

My own damn self, I would have another question about this passage. How does "evolution" act as an agent in exercising "selection?" I haven't seen any guy called "evolution" sittin around on a barstool anywhere, know what I'm sayin?

Both answers are equally clear.
Toss a coin for the ribbon:

The obverse for Setanta, the reverse for Layman.

(Putting the coin into my hands and shake it until I don't know whether it is obverse or reverse, then toss it up to the ceiling).

It is reverse.

Thank you both.