Huh??? Why would I explain why it "doesn't"? Of course it does.
Mutations are random with respect to fitness. That is, mutations just occur, by various mechanisms, and it's only later, in the nonrandom process of selection (the effect of differential rates of survival and reproduction) that nature "decides" what constitutes success or failure.
Incidentally... Strictly speaking the mutations themselves are neither successes or failures. It is the variant forms the mutations sometimes produce (and sometimes mutations are neutral or "silent," and not associated with variations in outward form or behavior) that will succeed or fail relative to other variant forms.
Let’s say mutation A is a viable mutation and is represented by heads.
Mutation B is a non-viable mutation and is represented by tails.
Is it then your contention that “evolution” always comes up heads?
Yes, of course that is my contention.
The entire process of evolution -- including both mutation and selection -- always comes up heads. ("Always," at least assuming parameters are not wildly askew; i.e. mutation rates are not abnormally high, population sizes are not abnormally low, etc.)
Especially in respect to the stark contrast you posit, of "viable" versus "non-viable" mutations. (Actually, many mutants are only slightly more or less viable than other forms.) You do know what "viable" means, don't you?
1 : capable of living; especially : having attained such form and development as to be normally capable of surviving outside the mother's womb
2 : capable of growing or developing
3 a : capable of working, functioning, or developing adequately b : capable of existence and development as an independent unit c (1) : having a reasonable chance of succeeding (2) : financially sustainable
Certainly any variant that is literally "non-viable" must be rapidly eliminated from a population.
Where are the fossils of the failures? Produce one.
You continue with this bizarre notion -- and I'm not sure exactly what your thinking is here, or if even you are clear about your thinking -- that failures should produce fossils, even abundant fossils. Why do you think this? If failure means a failure at surviving or reproducing, then how do populations of failures ever become large enough to leave fossils?
How about this. Why don't YOU produce one. Let's take polydactyly (the congenital production of extra fingers or toes) for instance.
This condition occurs in about 1 in 500 live births. That means there are MILLIONS of humans alive right now who have this condition (or had it surgically fixed after birth).
But -- so far as I know -- there is not one single human fossil with extra fingers of toes.
This is a complete absence of fossil "failures" not for something hypothetical, but for a condition that we KNOW exists, and reoccurs regularly in every generation.
It is just that it is relatively rare, and rare forms generally aren't preserved as fossils, just due to the laws of chance. Fossils themselves are rare (with exceptions, e.g. diatoms and such, but certainly few exceptions for complex animals like mammals, reptiles or birds) so a particular form must be numerous in the first place to even leave fossils, and even then fossils will tend to be of the most "typical" forms for a given species.
I never said I expected anything to survive. In fact, I said the opposite.
Actually you said (if evolution were true) you would expect literally "impossible" creatures to be common found as fossils. Which is to say they would exist in large enough numbers to leave enough fossils that would be commonly found. Which is, in effect, to say that non-viable creatures be viable. Which is quite nonsensical.
But feel free to believe in your miraculous unknown force that never fails, only succeeds.
That would be the "force" that says viable creatures are more viable than non-viable creatures. Now, how is that "miraculous"?!?
Where do you get the bizarre notion that “random” means always succeeding?
Nowhere, because obviously I don't have such a notion. Again, the entire process of evolution -- variation WITH variants experience differing rates of survival and reproductive success based on their fitness, i.e. mutation AND selection -- is NOT random. It's not, of course, deterministic either, but it's NOT random.
What's random about evolution is the PARTS of evolution that are random, namely the mutations that produce variation. IOW, variation occurs in all organically and genetically possible directions. A mutant is, in the general case, as apt to be a bit smaller as it is to be a bit larger than the non-mutant form.
THEN there's the NON-random part of evolution -- selection -- where it gets decided, based on all the interacting factors of the environment and the organism's relation to that environment, whether it's better to be a bit smaller, better to be a bit bigger, or best to remain about the same.
That selection factor determines whether the randomly occurring variation will non-randomly move the population in the direction of getting smaller, of getting larger, or of (despite the presence of variation in each generation) staying about the same.
The whole process is therefore NON-random. Selection NON-randomly tends to eliminate either larger variants and preserve smaller ones, or eliminate smaller and preserve larger, or eliminate both larger and smaller and preserve average.
How did “evolution” discover, mathematically, the concept and application of a straight line? How about a parabolic curve? How many times did “evolution” cause a plant to grow in a completely erratic fashion, because it hadn’t yet discovered the engineering concept of a straight line? Oh, a straight line is nothing, you say? Then lets see you produce one...from nothing, with no knowledge.
First, plant branches generally are not straight. It's why we invented this thing called "lumber," and why we cut branches to make it.
But what is the, relatively, straightest part of a plant? The trunk, right? What do a need to "know" as a plant to grow a straight trunk? I need to know the direction called "up". If I grow consistently "up," my trunk will be generally straight. How do I know "up" from down? Well, it's this little thing called "gravity".
In fact if you start a plant normally, but then turn it sideways, the branch or shoot will NOT grow straight. It will bend in order to keep growing "up" wrt gravity.
That is not quite true.
It will bend to keep growing towards the maximum source of sunlight.