There is not enough evidence to support mutation as a primary mechanism that drove evolution.

First, we need to clear the resolution up a little, because of some ambiguity with respects to the word "mutation. " There is a difference between a somatic mutation and a germline mutation. A somatic mutation doesn't occur in sperm or egg cells, so it is not heritable. A germline mutation however, occurs within sperm/egg cells, and that altered gene can be passed on. somatic mutation - a change in the genetic structure that is neither inherited nor passed to offspring. . http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov... germline mutation - the presence of an altered gene within the egg and sperm (germ cell) such that the altered gene can be passed to subsequent generations. . http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov... So, I hope it's clear that I'm supporting the position that GERMLINE mutations, not somatic mutations, are a primary mechanism of evolution, because somatic mutations do not contribute to genetic variation, the key to evolution. I also need to point out that germiline mutations are the ULTIMATE source of genetic variation, so when studies mention genetic variation, as a reader, one should understand that germline mutations were likely responsible for that. gene variation - genetic variation can refer to differences between individuals or to differences between populations. Mutation is the ultimate source of genetic variation. . http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov... mutation (germline) - a change in a DNA sequence, usually occurring because of errors in replication or repair. Mutation is the ultimate source of genetic variation. . http://evolution.berkeley.edu... I need everyone to understand that genetic variation is essentially contingent on mutation as a driving force, and that genetic variation is the cornerstone of biodiversity, so my burden, as it were, is sort of a proof of principle. I have to show that a principle of evolution is a major force that drove evolution. *Peer-Reviewed Studies* 1. According to a PNAS published study on the effects of mutation on evolution and selection, researchers concluded that increased mutation led to more biological fitness, so phenotypes (characteristics) that were newly developed by mutations led to greater success within specific constraints. More mutation, increased fitness. "In the case of mutation rates, Liberman et al. (61) showed that for period 2 and symmetric selection, increased mutation rate is always favored, and the mean fitness at equilibrium is an increasing function of the mutation rate. " . http://www.pnas.org... 2. Another PNAS published study mentions that the evolution of characteristics among organisms and the diversity there within are a direct result of NOVEL mutations, that is to say, new information was created by mutations alone and this leads to biodiversity. "Phenotypic evolution occurs primarily by mutation of genes that interact with one another in the developmental process. .. the evolution of phenotypic diversity of different phyla has occurred by a continuous process of novel mutations and elimination of preexisting less-fit genotypes. " . http://www.pnas.org... 3. Another PNAS published study indicates that beneficial mutations drive evolution and, in E. Coli, the researchers were able to use the mutation rate to predict the overall beneficial mutation rate, which indicates that mutations are not only creating novel, advantageous phenotypes, but mutations are also driving the evolutionary success of E. Coli bacteria. "Given an approximate substitution rate for beneficial mutations per generation, a population size after transfer, nine generations per growth cycle, and a mean selection coefficient, we obtained 4 X 10^-9 per cell generation as an estimate for the beneficial mutation rate. " . http://www.pnas.org... I reject the resolution, because without germline mutations, genetic variation would likely not be so variant, and evolution would lack a major driving force. Your thoughts, Pro?