Question

Critics like to point out that the theory of evolution is flawed because it is based on random changes: mutations. They say that a random change in an organism (or a car or a TV set) is likely to harm it, not make it function better. What logical statement refutes these critics?

Answer 1

That you can say that even if mutations are random, and even if some of those random mutations are harmful to an organism, it doesn't mean that all random mutations are harmful. Some mutations are beneficial, and some neutral. Besides, it is not logical to point out at Tvs or Cars as examples of what random mutations can do because those are not living organisms and they do not mutate by themselves.

Step-by-step explanation: