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.

You claim that harmful mutations must necessarily be passed on to the next generation at a greater rate than beneficial mutations. Yet you fail to define or at least provide the theory of evolution's definition of harmful and beneficial mutations. You also have not shown any study, paper, or book by anyone in the field of biology or genetics that states harmful mutations even occur at a higher rate than beneficial ones much less remain in the population at higher percentages.

I did address the facts of your premise which you have not shown are true facts. If these "facts" of yours are so "commonly-known" then you should have no problem providing documentation of such from someone that works in the field of evolution biology.