1. If fish were elliminated at every wrong answer all fish would be ellimnated as it is completely out of the question for any fish to get every mutation correct.
No, the fish with the positive or neutral traits would be left.
the analogy wasn't perfect, i don't agree with most analogies in terms of evolution really because they always seem to be redundant because they refer to inanimate objects that can not reproduce or diversify.
Why would any one fish need to get all mutations 'correct' there is no end goal of being correct, only what helps it to survive.
also were talking about gradual change accumulating over many many generations over whole species, not one single fish.
one fish couldn't evolve anymore than i could.
2. The chances of being right leave very few fish and this at every stage makes them more likely to become extinct than the countless getting it wrong, simple mathematics.
Just because there are few of them does not make them more likely to die out,
why would a fish with a slightly better mutation be more likely to be eaten than one without?
in reality he would be less likely to be eaten.
3. Again your maths is wrong, with countless wrong mutations numbers alone will prevail.
The negative or neutral mutations are not in cohorts to eliminate the positive ones, they are not in competition with each other in that way, their only competition is in avoiding predators and finding food and mates, the fish with the positive mutation is able to do all these things better so therefore has improved survivability.
think about it for a second, take it to extremes even.
in a race of fish all suffering from this fin eating predator and one was born with a fully evolved leaf-fin all of a sudden (wouldn't happen but humour me) would he survive better or would he 'be outnumbered' and therefore die off?
being outnumbered is irrelevant you see? he lives better with less danger of attack and is most likely going to reproduce a lot passing on his trait to some of his kids.
the exact same thing is happening with only a tiny benefit instead of a massive one.
4. Your maths is wrong, with countless wrong mutations a fish with a correct mutation is more likely to breed with a fish with the wrong mutation which favours the wrong mutation in numbers.
Nope, he's more likely to breed with a fish who has only neutral mutations, but if he did breed with a fish who had a negative mutation then that does not mean that the positive mutation would be bred out, the opposite actually.
For this you need to understand a little of how genes are passed on, but a gross simplification for right now would be that some of their off spring would carry the positive trait and some would carry the negative. those who displayed the negative would again be likely eaten and those who displayed the positive have a better chance on average of survival. and so go on to pass on the genes again, multiplying.
5. Well as any mutation has no sense where is the sense in just following one specific mutation, why not try growing a beard and a million other far sighted mutations that would not exactly do any harm.
Well first off there is no conscious effort to 'follow' anything,
why wouldn't the fish grow an ink shooter to escape prey? or a pair of hands so he can punch them away and tie his shoelaces should he gain some feet too?
simply because the steps to begin such a process were not rewarded with improved survivability.
If you do not question evolution then nothing will be questioned by you, that leaves me to do the questioning by default. It would not do if no one asked any questions.
question everything i always say,
nothing wrong with that, but try and accept evidence when it comes your way too.