[Thatcherite]

In just TWO sentences you switch from harmful to good. How can this BE????

You see so many of these false dichotomies. I get the impression that you are busy looking for holes or contradictions in evolutionary arguments before you've properly understood them. Understand them first, then try to spot the flaws.

Please read very carefully what I wrote, and think about it some more, not in terms of trying to pick holes, but in terms of trying to genuinely understand the argument. If you can't work it out in the next day or so ask me again, and I'll explain. I believe that you are clever enough to work out what I mean for yourself without me having to drag you through ever painful minute stage in the argument.

Hint: Read the entire sentences which you have highlighted portions of. The highlighted portions are contradictory it is true, but the context removes the contradiction.

[Elsie]

The change in environment does not of itself cause the mutations. Mutations which would have been neutral or harmful in the old environment may be beneficial in the new one. When most creatures are well adapted to their current environment most mutations will be harmful or neutral and very few will be beneficial. A change in environment changes the proportion of beneficial mutations because now the organsisms are not so well adapted to their new environment and it is more likely that any given mutation will improve them for their new environment than previously. So evolution proceeds faster because natural selection has more beneficial mutations "coming at it" to select from.

Total context.

Nothing improves.