oooh, i'm scared, evolution is the mockery of science. allow me to illustrate
The only mockery going on here is your own mockery of science, under the pretext that you understand it well enough to say that a specific branch of scientific theory, evolution, is not true, when you've demonstrated and continue to demonstrate that this is not the case.
Yet you provide no actual evidence or reasoned arguments about evolution. You quote from other sources and claim that those quotes support your argument even though they do not, but the only thing you yourself do is make assertion after assertion which not only do not stand up on their own, but cannot. And when confronted about this, you get belligerent and stubborn, rather than actually listening to people who might just know more than you about this. You put the primacy of your cherished belief above the actual quest to discover truth; you place your ignorance in a shrine and hold it closely, yet insist that you're not the one being ignorant about the subject.
The fact that it is human nature to be reluctant to admit that one can be wrong about something is no excuse, because everyone has to deal with that inherent attitude. It's up to you to show that you can overcome it, instead of clinging to it even while it drags you down like an anchor.
These three staples of evolution cannot work at the same time. Therefore my statement regarding evolution and ignoring science stands.
You mean these?
Heritable variation exists within populations of organisms.
Organisms produce more offspring than can survive.
These offspring vary in their ability to survive and reproduce.
Leaving aside the fact that you haven't actually shown why they cannot operate at the same time, I can very easily demonstrate that they can, and do.
First, heritable variation refers to the fact that organisms within a species have differences that can be passed down from one generation to the next. This is true, and you can confirm it by examining these organisms and their DNA. For example, humans have heritable differences in such areas as hair, eye, and skin pigmentation, musculature, bone density, height, and many others as well.
Second, organisms do produce more offspring than can naturally survive. For example, before the advent of modern medicine, a significant minority (20-30% or more) of human children died long before they reached maturity and so precluded any possibility of passing on their genes. Yet the human population consistently grew, if in fits and starts due to other factors such as disease epidemics and wars, because parents invariably had many children who survived to their majority. This is true of every single species that has ever lived; for all the organisms which do not live long enough to reproduce, due to predation, accident, illness, or whatever, there are many more which do.
And third, offspring do vary in their ability to survive and reproduce. When an epidemic strikes, some children die, while others survive. This is the starkest possible demonstration of how this variation happens, but it occurs in many lesser ways too. A naturally outgoing individual will be more likely to reproduce (in the long run) than one who is introverted and withdrawn, due to the simple fact that they meet more people and are more likely to find someone they're compatible with. And even if they're not compatible in the long-term, they're still more likely to get children out of the deal.
All three of these are correct in their own right. There is nothing about them which makes them somehow untrue when taken together. The fact that some offspring do not survive does not eliminate hereditary variation; hereditary variation assuredly does not contradict the variation in the ability to survive and reproduce. So I have clearly demonstrated that your assertion, that these three facts cannot work at the same time, is wrong. Can you admit that you were and are wrong about this, and that every single argument you have advanced to try to contradict evolution has been countered? Or will you persist in petulantly demanding that your opinion has to be right and evolution, despite all the weight of evidence and reasoning in support of it, has to be wrong?