To clear the air.... I am not religious. I don't believe in God.
Does that mean you disbelieve the catastrophism and special creation? If so, what in the world do think accounts for life? Alien terraforming?
I want to know the truth which is why I'm here.
That goal is inconsistent with discounting first principles of science.
I think a lot of effort could be saved by dwelling on this. If you would simply state what motivates your disbelief in evolution we might be able to nip the issue in the bud.
Traits which hinder reproduction are not selected for because their genes are not passed on to the next generation. That aspect of natural selection is obvious. It's selection by exclusion and I understand that's it's a powerful force for the shaping of species.
This was one of the ideas well known to Darwin, who studied and understood artificial selection. It was also the basis for Gregor Mendel's discoveries and the founding of genetics.
But no new animals are created via this process; creation by exclusion doesn't exist.
That's either false and incorrect or hopelessly vague and speculative. I guess you would have to explain what's bothering you.
"Creation" is generally used in the religious context, at least in modern vernacular. I think you mean "speciation". Yes, speciation by natural selection does occur. It's the central tenet of the Theory and well enough demonstrated through artificial selection.
So I am interested in the process which does create new animals.
Why only animals? That kind of focus is suspiciously religious in nature. Wasn't evolution covered in your schooling?
The "process" is evolution, generally through mutation under natural selection. However that's only the broad view. Other factors (genetic drift, migration/radiation/gene flow, co-evolution, niche building and collapse) are also in play.
Selection by inclusion... the inclusion of novel traits(genes) into the gene pool.
That's silly. The process is the same. Selection is selection. I think you're struggling with the difference between selection and other factors like genetic drift. But they can't be isolated. It's all happening concurrently. You might have a case for targeting a specific result, such as in artificial selection or some particular population being studied, but there's no point to this as far as the generalities of evolution are concerned.
There's two processes specifically that I have a problem with:
1) Do "beneficial" mutations really have an effect on survival and reproduction
By definition.
as often as they would need to
It's a matter of statistics. The best adapted traits thrive; and/or some unusual combination of well- and ill-adapted traits work in tandem. Horses for example are adapted for sleeping while standing which gives them the advantage of bolting when threatened. This works in tandem with the requirement that they need time to ruminate, which works in tandem with the large body mass needed to extract nutrients from forage, etc., etc. Put it all together and you have the success of a large ungulate against the unlikely odds of attracting predators with so much flesh to offer per kill.
in order to explain the existence of such diverse and complex lifeforms that exist today?
What difference does it make how complex and diverse organisms are? That sounds purely subjective. If all that existed on Earth were all of the grasses, you could equally complain that they are too diverse and complex to suit your taste. You could say the same about insects, bacteria or just about any other taxon. What difference does this make? Organisms are what they are because their traits have been shaped by countless prior speciation events. Besides, "diversity and complexity" is wholly the result of the "diversity and complexity" of the niches.
What else are you looking for? Magic? Why else would anyone discount the abundance of evidence that all species arrived through evolution? This gets back to dwelling on what it is that's really bugging you.
Not everything beneficial is a matter of life or death(in fact I would think most are not).
Keep in mind that more human embryos are naturally aborted to causes that are also selective. The same idea applies to all species that ever existed, that is, the rate of extinction is estimated to be in the high 90 percentile range.
2) Even if mutations are passed on to future generations, wouldn't they eventually be diluted out of the gene pool?
Of course not. Look at the Darwin's finches and note how the mutations carried by the progenitor species (feathers, beaks, etc.) led to just the opposite - they became the foundation of entire new species. Every organism is the product of mutation, so of course the mutations are handed down. In
H. sapiens sapiens the entire species is founded on the mutations for erect posture. From there the liberation of the hands afforded the opportunity to exploit the innate intelligence of the protohumans (now not only able to create a tool, but to wield it as a weapon). And from there the mutation for a larger brain ensured a strong foothold in a brand new niche.
How many mutations would you estimate it took for the human to evolve to it's current state?
This is kind of like asking "what is a genome?". There's no framework from which to make any estimate. It would be sheer speculation. Certainly there is some merit to commenting on the maximum number of permutations. How many ways can you arrange 3 billion base pairs? That gives a far upper limit. Considering there are 20,000 genes that code for proteins, you could still dig for how many mutations each of those can carry. Any way you look at it, the numbers are huge. But none of that even matters since there is no way to convert this into meaningful information.
