Huh? You don't know what you're issues are? All mutations are deleterious (real, observable, science)......that's all the science you need to know that we started form some singular point.....a point that can be nothing other than a singular point (call it creation). With all observable, scientific observational mutations being deleterious, how can anything "evolve"?.
This is absolutely false. The mutations we have can be neutral, bad, or good. The bulk of them happen to be bad, but if something as simple as the DNA strand that codes for one photoreceptor has a mutation and suddenly makes 2, you've got a beneficial mutation for something that benefits from being able to sense light in some form or another. You can't track those small mutations as they happen because the benefit or the detraction of a mutation totally depends on the environment in which it occurs.
There is some debate as to whether it happens more often in larger chunks where you get an extremely rare thing like 2 simultaneous mutations that cause a massive change that is beneficial to the organism. This theory is called punctuated equilibrium and a perfect example is the Lenski experiment. Check it out and then try telling us that all mutations are deleterious with a straight face. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment
If you don't understand it, basically what happened is that they were growing E-coli strains for many years using a citrate broth with some glucose in it. Wild E-coli can't feed off the citrate, but it does eat the glucose. Somewhere in one of the many thousands of strains they grew, one strain experienced a genetic mutation that allowed for the E-coli to start feeding off the citrate and the population of that batch exploded above the others. They even located where the genetic mutation happened. If you can't accept that as a beneficial mutation, then I don't know what else to tell you. It's a slam dunk.
When you say 'all mutations are deleterious', I really don't think you're taking into account the environment in which they happen. A good example of how a single gene mutation can be both good AND bad (depending where you are geographically) is Sickle Cell Anemia. This condition is a single mutation that causes a problem with the blood cells that can shorten the life span to somewhere near 45 years (still old enough to have offspring) BUT... having this trait also makes you vastly, VASTLY more resistant to malaria. So go figure... where do most of the people who get Sickle Cell have ancestry? You guessed it... tropical regions where malaria was prevalent. People who had Sickle Cell had a distinct survival advantage over those who did not have Sickle Cell in tropical areas due to high malaria cases, but those who had Sickle Cell in areas where malaria was not prevalent, it was just considered a bad disease. The people who were exposed to malaria (that had the Sickle Cell mutation) had a massive survival advantage over those who didn't and they passed that genetic mutation on to their children. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sickle-cell_disease
Evolution is a valid theory.
I'll assume they are. No. I'm an engineer who has researched/read extensively on the subject. Does that make me wrong? What are your credentials, thus making you an expert?
I have also read extensively on the subject and I have a medical background and found your assessment to be horribly misguided. Have you read anything by someone who wasn't a Christian? Where did you hear that all
mutations are deleterious and why do you feel they were a reliable source? Do you have any non-religious people saying the same thing? Was it from someone who published something for peer review?
Science doesn't give a shit whether or not you and I agree on the existence of an invisible sky man. It's only interested in what it finds. Look at what the people doing the science and presenting it to other scientists are saying. Mutations can and are beneficial sometimes. It's just a lot more rare and it has to be taken in geographical / environmental context.