Interesting that I was waiting for replies from you in other threads but instead of doing so, you've simply started more threads. Anyway, apart from awaiting a reply for where these figures came from, I have a few additional comments.
Some of them'll say a mutation that hurts a lifeform's survival chance by 1/10 of a per cent will be immediately detected and result in death, whereas a "beneficial mutation" of the same magnitude will always be passed on.
I've read on this topic in different places and have never come across such a claim. Source please.
Unless you can provide this, then subsequent conclusions are meaningless.
You also need to bear in mind what natural selection actually is. In a reproducing population, organisms that have a beneficial mutation will tend to produce more offspring than those which do not, and over time the mutation will become a feature of the population. There's no requirement for how often a beneficial mutation has to occur, nor is there a requirement for how quickly natural selection has to work (it depends on the environment and whether it is changing).
Where did you get the idea that all harmful mutations have to result in death? Who said this? Most mutations are on a molecular level and are not even noticeable; the vast majority of mutations are simply neutral. Conferring no particular advantage, they are not selected for in the environment.
Essentially this post is expressing incredulity that harmful mutations can be eliminated in a population due to selection pressures. I'm not sure what this is driving at. Just ask yourself if there are major populations of diseased and deformed organisms out in nature, because the "luck goddess" of evolution hasn't eliminated them yet. If you can find some, then you can claim the ideas in this post are correct. If you can't, then you might consider that this is because they were de-selected for in their environment. You might also consider the fact that selection pressures on humans have been greatly decreased since civilisation dawned, so anyone who does not take this into consideration is not understanding the role of the environment in the process.
I'm still waiting elsewhere for you to explain how bacteria whose lactose-digesting gene was removed could in subsequent generations digest lactose, and how bacteria could digest a human-made substance like nylon.
