Mutations disprove the theory of upward evolution

[pocaracas]

At least, we've agreed that deleterious mutations do cause a survivability/reproducibility problem, right?
Now, the non-deleterious mutations may have an effect on the certain details in the physiology of the animal, or on its functionality, or may have no effect at all.
When lots of these mutations build up.... if they have caused sufficient changes in physiology, they may give rise to a new species, or just a new race.
If one of them becomes deleterious, it is weeded out of the population, at the same rate as all deleterious mutations. But the overall population retains the non-deleterious ones and just goes on.
Do remember, we are not talking about one single animal from a given species. We are talking about an entire population. And the mutations pop up on single animals, not on the whole population at the same time!

We can agree that the deleterious mutations are weeded out.

But the remainder of the population is accumulating non-deleterious mutations.

If the population does not accumulate these changes, then there is not enough changes in the DNA to turn one species into another.

Non-deleterious mutations have no ill effect on each individual, hence, they carry on to the next generation and the next, and the next, and the next... at some point, you have many such non-deleterious mutations piling up in all the individuals of a species.

Now here is the problem. Unless it can be shown that there is enough that are beneficial, the rest do corrupt the genome of the species.

Like Lemonvariable72 wrote, we just keep it around.
It's mostly useless... but it's there.

It is speculation that there are enough beneficial changes to produce new functionality.

It is one mechanism which can account for new species or simply races/breeds.
How do you think dogs became as disparate as St Bernard and poodle?
(skip to ~1:15:00)