[quote]No. Natural selection is supposed to rid the population of mutation. [b]not quite. You need to understand what natural selection is. Natural selection is a phrase that describes how the environment (climate, competing species, competing animals of its own species, local environmental hazards, food sources, etc ) the species lives in affects it generation to generation. What happens is the traits and mutations that don't allow an animal to survive as well as it can compared to having another trait or mutation (like color variation), are less likely to passed on to the next generation. As those influencing factors change, so does what is naturally selected, and since environments are never the exact same over time or location to location, you end up with a wide range of results, which results in a wide range of life. It's about the ability to survive. [/b] But, you just said that mutation is the driving force of evolution. [b]I said it's one of them. So is natural selection, migration, and genetic drift.[/b] Therefore, evolution rids the population of itself. [b]no, because that's not what happens like I mentioned.[/b] I suppose you'd argue "no, it only takes away the bad ones." To which my reply is: [b](this isn't what I would argue, but I'll address it since you bring it up)[/b] Then how do "bad" mutations still exist, if evolution has existed for millions of years? Shouldn't evolution have taken care of that by now? Flaws and holes a plenty. [b]The only flaws and holes are in your understanding. Bad and good is not a black and white term. For example, the mutation of animals being born completely white (not albino, see pic) would typically be a survival disadvantage in most environments, so it gets selected against, but in some environments that color mutation becomes an advantage, and becomes the norm (example polar bears). Some mutations are neither bad nor good, and simply exist and get passed on by chance until they become the norm, this is called genetic drift. [/b] [/quote]