Quote:

Like skin shade any genetic data can be dominant and lead to mutations. If that mutations pay off the logical consequence is that this genetic pool will spread. Hence reproducing more of this genetic pool this again increases the chances of new mutations. and so forth

True evolution(not micro-evolution) depends upon mutations, it is one of the legs which it stands on. Yet mutations have never been found to add genetic information to an offspring, and the majority of time mutation is harmful.

The only time mutation has been beneficial has been when microorganisms have mutated to produce antibiotics. These are not superior evolved creatures, they only have resistance to infectious disease because of a kind of neutrality in their genome. There is no new DNA, just unreactive genes.

Regardless, other than this, mutation has not been observed to produce any beneficial results in any species. It is a thouroughly untested unscientific assertion to believe that we evolved through mutation.

Its also sad to see that most here seem to have no knowledge of the difference between micro evolution(adaption) and evolution.

The difference lies within the processes which occur within a species or one species evolving into another. In other words micro evolution has never been observed to work outside of a species.

What is a species? Taxonomy is not an exact science, but for the purposes of the creation vs evolution debate a species can be defined as those which can reproduce and have offspring. A wolf and a dog are in the same group. You cannot talk about differences within a species as evolution, it is adaptation.