>Terry,
>If evolution depends on mutations please to explain to me how then it postulates progress? You are assuming that good mutations will outnumber or outweigh bad mutations. Is that the observation of Science, or is it a matter of faith, because is the only mechanish that is available to make the theory reasonable?
>It must go something like this - All or almost all the mutations we observe are BAD, but there must have been good mutations at some time in the past because there has been progress from the single cell to the complex of billions of cells with specialized that make up the human body. Oh and yes, where did the single cell come from? The evolution of the woodpecker has always been somewhat of a puzzle to me. Think of all the millions, even billions of woodpeckers that beat their brains out and died before that magical day when the shock absorbing material in the woodpeckers head was complete and the organism was able to both eat and live...

The theory of evolution is nothing like what you describe above. You need to read up on it a bit. Evolution does work through mutations. You have heard the phrase "survival of the fittest". This does not mean the strongest or who can run the longest ;) It means the fittest in respect of the environment that the entity finds itself.

Mutations occur in each generation. They are niether good nor bad in any moral sense. They are simply more, or less, useful in relation to the environment in which the entity is born.

Generally speaking, those mutations which enable the animal to survive better in its environment gives that animal a leg up against its rivals and competitors. Those mutations that do not help an animal, or even hinder it, will cause it to find less food, fewer mates, and survive less well. Because of this, natural evolution will simply favour those animals who got mutuations that gave them some benefit in its environment and over its competitors.

Woodpeckers, in your example above, did not just pop out of an egg one day and start to beat their heads out against the neaerest tree like you suggest. The woodpeckers ability to make holes in trees comes about through a long process of evolution where beaks and skeletons evolved over countless generations. In any one woodpecker embryo, even today, there will be mutations, some which may aid this particular woodpecker, some that may work against it.

If the woodpecker gets a mutation that enables it to compete for mates and food, etc, better than the next woodpecker, will allow it a greater chance of mating and hence to promote its genes, including its unique mutations, onto the next generation. Those mutations that disable, or work against, a particular woodpecker will make it less likely that it will be able to mate and hence to promote its genes, and its mutations, onto the next geneation.

In this way, beneficial genes, traits, mutations, are generally carried forward whilst non-beneficial genes, traits, and mutations, are generally weeded out. "Beneficial" being in relation to the ability to survive in the current environment. This is survival of the fittest - fittest to the environment. Of course as the environment changes, as it does all the time, what mutations are beneficial or not to any generation will change.

Sometimes a species cannot change fast enough to fit in with the changing environment, or perhaps the random mutations simply don't provide sufficient benefit or are even disabling. This can happen and then the species will eventually die out, as has happened to millions of species before.

You also need to put this idea into historical perspective. Life first emerged in some basic form some 4,000,000,000 years ago on this planet. Think of how many generations can occur in that time, how many mutations, how many variations. Mutations occur all the time, in all species, including human. But in any generation they are small, only incremental.