The Problem with Christians

[Esquilax]

Apples and oranges. Species change is dependent on major changes to the DNA through mutation. Given the prevelance of mutation in the human genome, shouldn't we have seen some major changes by now? Like eyes in the back of your head or something?

As I told you before- it really does seem like you're just ignoring correction and pretending nobody has answered you, now- the period of time that human beings have existed is almost nothing, on an evolutionary timescale. In that time, we have seen some notable mutations that, business as usual for you apparently, you're unaware of before deciding they don't exist; populations of tetrachromatic women able to see more of the light spectrum than normal humans, another small population with hyper-dense bones making them resistant to breaks, a genetic abnormality that increases resistance to AIDs, that sort of thing. They aren't, like, "ooh, here's a person with wings," or anything like that, but if that's truly what you're asking for, then I need to ask you why you're insisting evolution behave like a cartoon version of itself, rather than what the process actually describes.

But my comment about selection pressures and the human population isn't an apples and oranges comparison, because natural selection is sort of the second half of the evolutionary process. Ignore it at your own risk. Humans control practically every aspect of their personal environments, they cultivate those environments to suit their needs, so what, exactly, are the selection pressures that would propagate this big, cartoony mutations you seem to want through the population? Where are the factors causing humans without those changes to die out, in a system where it's trivial to protect human life from its environment? Where are the factors causing those with certain mutations to flourish in that same environment, ensuring that their genes spread through the general population? In a world where humans can be preserved and allowed to live no matter what mutations they carry, what impetus is there for those mutations to be retained at any greater rate than a normal human genome, and intensified therein?

To recap, not only is your understanding of the situation completely wrong, but even if your misrepresentation were one hundred percent accurate, it still wouldn't lead to the conclusion you've reached. Again I ask you: how much research into this subject have you actually done, before deciding that it's wrong?

Concerning the 0.000444% figure, this isn't really relevant since most of the explosion of life apparently occurred in the 20 million year Cambrian period - hence the 1% figure that I came up with.

There's more wrong with what you're saying than the figure...