You really need to read up on Evolution because you obviously don't understand it.
The passing on of a mutated gene DOES NOT require inbreeding, it only requires that the particular gene be dominant. That dominant trait is passed on from parent to offspring.
For instance, let's say a male bird had a mutated gene that made it more brightly colored than the other males. Through sexual selection, he attracts more females. The mutated gene that caused his bright coloring is passed on. There is no need for inbreeding.
Inbreeding passes on negative recessive traits and leads to less genetic diversity and unfit individuals. This has been observed time and again, ask any animal breeder.
No, it doesn't. A recessive mutation can be passed on as well, even a harmful one; it happens all the time. If the dominant gene doesn't allow the recessive gene to express itself, then the recessive gene can spread throughout the population quite easily, especially if it takes both recessive to cause a condition that kills the individual. As long as the recessive is rendered non-harmful by the dominant gene, the individual will survive to reproduce and pass on the harmful mutation. Witness hemophilia and cystic fibrosis.
But that still doesn't answer the argument of why what you say can't work for creation, that a viable population cannot come from a small parent group, can work for evolution. If a mutation occurs in an individual and is passed on, then conditions occur that isolate that group so that it can no longer inbreed with the parent population, then the species will arise from a small parent group, which you say can't work. If the mutated species stays within the vicinity of the parent group, how can it diverge if it continues to breed with the parent group?