Mutations affect the population as ALL are born with mutations, and it's YOUR claim that most mutations are harmful. Ergo this can only inevitably lead to population decline. If not, then obviously most mutations are NOT harmful. I'm sure you can find yourself a cherry picked study, however you may find that the factors that led to population decline were more than just mutations, like hunting, environmental disaster, etc.
Firstly, I did not make that statement. It really doesn't matter what percentage is harmful, what is important is if you can show a beneficial mutation. Then tie that in to why the creature is better than the rest of the population.
Ergo this can only inevitably lead to population decline.
This is a Non sequitur as population decline is not affected due to a few mutations. We can see through population statistics that all of humanity could have started since 1200. See the chart at:
If a mutation is harmful it only effects that individual. Even if it is harmful, it doesn't by necessity require the death of the individual. We might say that myopia is a mutation, but it doesn't stop people from living or reproducing. Most population declines are due to wars and disease, not mutations.
All this is really a red herring as you have not shown a beneficial mutation which causes a new structure (like a wing, etc. which would be required for evolution to be true).Mutations have to increase the genetic data or change the genetic data to produce not only the wing but the nervous, muscle, circulatory, feather and bone systems required for a change in the organism (as evolution postulates). Can you imagine if a wing was formed without the bone or any of the other necessary structures required. If the wing replaced a leg, how would the creature escape from predators? If this were true, then we would find millions of these random mutations in the fossil record. Where are they?