What?!? That is not even close to evolutionary theory. Selection pressure has a much greater influence on rate of change; mutation rate has very little impact. A species with very few mutations but in an environment that places serious survival pressures on that species will see a greater evolutionary rate of change than a species with a high rate of mutation but very little pressure from its environment to change. Sharks have evolved more "slowly" than other species of fish, not because we can say anything about the "rate of mutation" in sharks versus those fish (which wouldn't be constant in either, anyway... hence the term random), but because any mutation would be unlikely to make a shark better adapted to its environment (it already fits its role in its environment very well).
Your entire argument is based on a premise about what evolutionary theory postulates that is completely wrong. If you're going to argue against something, at least understand what you are arguing against first! Jeez...
He's stuck in a self-dug lying rut and cannot under any circumstances admit error lest he be damned to Hell for all eternity for being the troll that he is. So it goes with trolls.
That's incorrect. Selection pressure could be from a volcano spewing ash into the air, or from a climate change, but "Selection" doesn't make any change to any species...it merely culls out those entities that have or don't have certain pre-existing genetic structures.
To actually change the genetic structure..to actually change a species, you have to have physical changes in the make-up or sequencing of the DNA itself (e.g. genetic mutations).
Without mutations, you can't have speciation. You can only have more or less of an existing population.
Nice try, though.