Doesn't deny or disprove anything I said.
Lol you want to categorize while I'm asking to not be categorized, especially with negative connotation or blatant insults such as willfully ignorant. I would expect more from you who, I presume, is not "willfully ignorant".
Well its undeniably possible that an alternative theory MAY disprove it, but nobody has of yet been able to produce one.
Mutations..are the basis of evolution states the world book encyclopedia. However, it is not just any kind of mutation that evolution requires. Robert Jastrow pointed the slow accumulation of favourable mutations. The environment selects those few mutations that enhance survival, resulting in a series of small changes of life form into another, the origin of a new species. Its is generally accepted that the mutations supposedly involved in evolution are small accidental changes that accumulate over a period of time. Now you said, "mutation that allowed an animal to better survive in its environement". This is totally false. Beneficial mutations are a basis of evolution what proportion of them are beneficial? The is overwhelming agreement on this point among evolutionist. For example Carl Segan declares "most of them are harmful or lethal". It was found in an experiments that, for every succesful or useful mutation, there are many thousands which are harmful". For example when mutated insects were placed in competition with mormal ones the results were always the same. After a greater or lesser number of generations the mutants are eliminated. They could not compete because they were not improved but were degenerate and at a disadvantage. In the long run to be sure mutations make evolution move onward and upward. But do they? Would any process that resulted in the harm more than 999 times out of 1000 be beneficial? If you wanted to build a house,would you hire a builder who, for every correct piece of work, turned out thousands that were defective? And mutation doesnt change living organisms into a completely different organism. The world book of encyclopedia gives an example of what might happen to a beneficial mutation. A plant in a dry area might have a mutant gene that causes it to grow larger and stronger roots. The plant would have a better chance of survival because it roots could absorb more water l. But has anything new appeared? No, its still the same plant. Mutations could change the colour, texture of one's hair but the hair will always remain hair
The majority of mutations are harmful, so they are by default:
-detrimental to survival
-detrimental to gene replication
But those odd few, that help improve the odds for gene replication and survival are the ones that get 'selected' in the gene pool. Stating that there are a 100 bad mutations and one good mutation doesn't matter, what matters is that the beneficial change survives, and it does. Is this an inefficient builder? No, because once the beneficial change occurs, natural selection comes in and allows it to supersede other potential replicators in the gene pool. A positive change, is by definition one which allows the replicator to become better at replication than other potential replicators.
To give an example of a beneficial 'change' read up the experiment on the e coli bacterium experiment where one population of bacteria exploded in its numbers after 45 000 generations in the lab(conducted by the scientist Lenski). So no, its false for you to state that there's no positive, beneficial mutation observed when thats exactly what was observed with the coli bacterium. The 'descendants' became gradually better than their ancestors, through separate mutations, slowly and steadily prior to the one major leap that I mentioned.
Another thing about that experiment, and to address your point about 'new' things appearing. When a single, marginally beneficial change has occurred within a population_, then the probability for a much more dramatic change for the offspring carrying the beneficial change is much greater than it was for the ancestor. Basically this is also why probability and stastical calculations used by creationists are flawed, because changed conditions completely alter the scenario for the NEXT subsequent, larger change. Please note here that I'm talking about entire populations over thousands of generations, and how cumulative change can actually work towards increasing the likelihood of more dramatic change, as demonstrated in the lenski experiment(which took twenty years BTW).
So logical inference shows us that not only is large change over time(time,basically in evolution means number of generations) inevitable, it actually becomes exponential when added on top of previously introduced change(mutation).
And all this beneficial and positive mutation was directly observed.
