actually random mutations are the primary cause. without them, you only have variation within the species due to natural selection. You basically are relying on defective genes to provide some kind of benefit that gets passed on.
First off, mutations aren't "defective genes" in general, so your argument would fail even if mutations were the primary cause of genetic change. But you're forgetting about errors while replicating or repairing DNA. Those are actually quite common, and so they drive evolution as well.
what I never understood is it doesn't seem like many lifeforms of a species would have the same exact beneficial random mutation, if they are truly random. It seems like Darwin argues that a large percentage of them have the exact same beneficial mutation, and then in the next generation, they all have another beneficial random mutation that builds on the previous random mutations. You have to think they could go severla generations without a random mutation in the ones that had a random mutation in the first generation.
What makes you think that it doesn't
take hundreds of generations for a beneficial mutation to spread through a gene pool, or that you have to have beneficial mutation on top of beneficial mutation, generation after generation? What you put above about 'Darwin' requiring that most of them must have the exact same beneficial mutation, and then have another different beneficial mutation in the very next generation (and presumably, so on and so forth), that's nothing but creationist propaganda.
Mutations happen all the time, but most of them don't make any noticeable difference. So it usually takes a while (hundreds of generations) for those mutations to layer themselves to the point where they do have some effect. It also takes hundreds of generations for mutations to spread themselves through the gene pool, even under the best of circumstances. In other words, you're not understanding something that's not actually part of the theory of evolution, but made-up propaganda from those who oppose it.
i think we are challenging the laws of probablity once again. lol
You never did answer my questions about probability. For that matter, you didn't even acknowledge that I'd asked them. Until you demonstrate that you understand how probability works, you claiming that something goes against the laws of probability is silly.
Here's an easy pair of questions for you. How many people do you need in a room to reach a 50% chance that two of them will have the same birthday? And how many people do you need in a room to reach a 99% chance?