Why is evolutions primary mechanism mutation ?

Other than the fact that evolution chose nothing since it isn't a sentient being, you have an interesting point. Let me help you develop your understanding a little.The primary mechanism isn't 'mutation'. It is actually a duel mechanism. Mutation, couple with a selection method. It has been demonstrated that an appropriate selection method can increase information over time. Check this outNow some people don't think that natural selection is a powerful enough selection method to do this. That is a debate for another thread. Mutations are just an easy way of saying 'copying error'. When DNA is copied to another cell (for example during asexual reproduction), it is almost inevitable that the copying process will be not be 100% accurate. These mistakes are mutations. Most of the time they make no difference to the organism, sometimes they harm it, sometimes they convey some advantage. For example, one famous Japanese bacterium has relatively recently had a 'frame shift' mutation that has led to it being able to 'eat' nylon. Read about it hereThis very basic life form is really just a bunch of self replicating chemicals. It doesn't have to learn to reproduce, that's what it does, by definition.If the above is true, the rest of your position doesn't make sense. So let's work on the above first before getting to what follows. Do you have any more questions?

Evolution isn't an event that happens. Think of it as a continuously operating process. Not at all. The mutation happens once, and is passed on its offspring, which pass it on to theirs, so that there is a group of organisms with the mutation. I really don't understand. Why does reproductive success lower each generation? Cell 1 divides into 2. 2 and 3 divide into 4, they divide into 8, then 16, then 32. In order to replicate the cell needs energy. This energy harnessing is a close analogy to 'eating and breathing'. New energy harnessing systems evolve from this. This may include photosynthesis (harnessing energy from the sun) or eating (harnessing the energy that the photosynthesising organisms harness). OK. This might be a misunderstanding here, but I won't argue the point with you just yet. Fire away.

No, just the reproductive ones. In sexual reproduction, the two cells join together and the DNA is combined. The mutation need only occur at this time. In asexual reproduction, when the cell splits it copies its DNA over - the mutation occurs with this copying procedure. No, I think that refers to the fact that most mutations have no effect on an organisms reproductive success. Others are harmful, only a small amount are benefitial. Thus: the chances that any given mutation will convey an advantage is very small.

They don't do it as a scientific statement, but they do exist and there's also the Darwin Fish. My apologies - when I started this I had a point, but I totally forgot what it was.

Your problem is with Natural History then, not the Theory of Evolution. Like all history, a certain level of necessary speculation is required in Natural History. So specific lineages and the like are difficult or impossible to specify.The theory itself is absurdly solid. There is lots to support it, including (but not limited to the nested hierarchy, evidence of transtitional forms and the amazing evidence that is found out the genetic levelto indicate just a few. It is important to really seperate mentally the Theory of Evolution and Natural History. The theory is a scientific one, it has masses of data. Natural History is allied with the Theory in that the Theory explains the hows of the History, and the Natural Historians can use the Theory to propose ideas about what has happened in the past, evolutionary pathways etc.

It gets confusing when you reply to yourself. Well...kind of. We can see from the fossil record that life on earth has changed through time (Natural History). The theory of evolution explains how it went through this change. The Natural Historians can use the Theory to postulate the evolutionary paths of certain organisms (eg hominids), guided by what physical evidence there is. We can never be sure of the exact route taken, but we can be confident of what 'direction' it headed in. Interestingly this happens in evolution. If you look at what the scientists are saying, they don't say "This is what happened, full stop, end of story". When evolutionists suggest that an extinct organism is ancestral, they are using convenient short 'hand' much like cosmologists might say 'big bang', when you really examine what is being said it is 'this extinct organism shared a recent common ancestor with x". It might be the case that it is an ancestor, it might just be an extinct branch.However, Natural Historians have a different job. Their job is to try and construct, as best they can, a picture of the Natural World for the past several billion years. This, it could be argued, isn't science in the strictest sense - it uses science, so is basically scientific - but sometimes it has to join some dots over wide gap of knowledge based on educated opinion. These opinions change as more evidence is unearthed. If you think this makes Natural History flawed, then that is fine, but when you look at Natural History from the point of view that it is not absolute, it stops being quite so flawed. After all, there are many ideas of Natural History out there, contradicting one another but that doesn't matter. When you say model, do you mean the History that Natural Historians are working on? From what I've seen the absense of data is admitted with frustration, but the existence of other data is observed with glee. Whilst Natural History is a model that relies on science, sometimes it has to use educated guesses (or rather, hypotheses) to fill in the gaps. Natural History is not a scientific model like the Big Bang, Natural History is more of a history like archaelogy, but without written documentation left behind to help things out.If an archaelogists excavates ruins of a building which is Roman in design, incorporating styles from 50BC and some evidence of styles that came into use around 1AD the archaelogists can assume it was a) built by Romans and b) built somewhere around 50BC-1ADThis is a flawed model, by your standards but that doesn't mean that there are problems with the 'Theory of cultural evolution'.The question really should be, since this thread is about the Theory of Evolution (ie mutations) why bring up your objections about Natural History?

There have only been three major selection factors in recorded human history. War, disease, natural disaster. Of those, only the latter have been massively significant and constant. The latter is unpredictable and random so is not a strong enough selection factor make much difference. Disease however, is a strong selection factor for humans. Massively selecting war has been evolved away by social evolution rather than biological.We are constantly evolving to battle diseases. As predicted by evolution, mutations can cause defects in birth. If these defects are very bad, the offspring may well not have reproductive success. Those that have good mutations are more likely to have reproductive success.I was hoping you'd actually read my last post to you. Quite right, and both of those evils were selected out. Hitler didn't pass on his genes. Social evolution, fascinating, but not entirely relevant. Nor would he, and if they did that offspring would be effectively sterile, so it would be a short lived species! Speciation occurs to populations, not to individuals. Well, we live longer now than in everything but Hebrew folklore. Fortunately evolution isn't needed. Our population size is ever growing, so the selective effect is not as strong as it has been for other species; 7,000 years is only a small length of time, and we know that even strong selection can result in no speciation in that time period.

How? Because they did bad things? Evolution doesn't have a morality, and often the cruelest and deadliest are rewarded the most.