Evolution, religion, and ignorance.

[Esquilax]

First, you haven't proven that the small changes represent anything new.

I love it when theists bluster in here as though to disprove my claims, only to end up inadvertently demonstrating them to be correct: it's clear your understanding of evolution is lacking, here.

Genetic changes, which comprise the entirety of evolution, are random, and observably do produce "new" things, regardless of whether those new changes are advantageous or not. For example, there's a type of three toed skink in New South Wales that is evolving the ability to birth live young, something the skinks have never been able to do before.

What is that, if not new?

By the first definition, which I accept, a simple example of evolution would be that one generation has 75% brown eye genes and 25% blue eye genes, but the next generation has 74% brown eye genes and 26% blue eye genes. There is nothing new in this form of evolution, and nothing to accumulate.

Demonstrably wrong with regards to newness, as demonstrated above. As to accumulation, should the blue eye genes prove to be an advantageous trait, such that they allow the next generation to breed more, then the propensity for blue eyes will become more entrenched in the next generation simply due to the propagation of blue eyed genes. That's accumulation of blue eyes amongst the population, but it's also worth mentioning that there's rarely only one change occurring at a time. Say the blue eyed generation had a subset that had larger eyes that were able to breed more, and within that subset there was a further subset that had a slightly different shape to their teeth, and so on and so forth. Assuming those traits remained stably advantageous so that they continue to propagate via sheer numbers, in the end you'd have a population that had much larger, exclusively blue eyes with differently shaped teeth and whatever else happened to be positive in their genetic mutations, and yet you're saying that that population wouldn't be a new species no matter how many changes occur?

Second, you haven't proven that changes go solidly in one direction. Going back to my example, the third generation could have 75% brown eye genes and 25% blue eye genes. This would be evolution from the second generation, but it would have gone nowhere from the first generation.

They don't go solidly in one direction. In fact, there are many factors that cause those traits to regress, but that's also evolution. Whales, for example, descend from land dwelling ungulate species that returned to the sea and regained aquatic traits, as demonstrated by fossil and genetic evidence. That's a marked regression, but no matter which way that pendulum swings, the result is still evolution.

Regarding your example, what most likely happened is that the blue eye gene didn't represent a significant breeding or survival advantage, and hence what you're seeing is the usual genetic drift. Again, while that one mutation may not be remarkable, they don't happen alone, and they don't happen in a one-per-person vacuum, either. This is more complex than your oversimplifications.