Small Steps---how small can they be?

In principle, the smallest change possible is a single nucleotide substitution: the change of one base of DNA into another. Or, similarly, the insertion or deletion of a single base. It is possible to measure the rate of mutation, and to show that this accounts for the amount of evolution that's happened in the available time.But you're talking about significant and useful mutations. That's harder to quantify.Our ability to read genomes is fairly recent. People are still trying to figure out what were the significant mutations that make, for example, humans different from chimps.If you're still posting on these forums in twenty years, bump this thread.

You mean a creationist asked a quantitative question about genetics? We ought to give you some sort of a medal.Sarcasm apart, no, you can't "run natural selection out of time" according to the data we have, and in fact the data we have shows that the time one would estimate according to mutation rates is pretty darn consistent with the time one gets from measuring the ages of fossils. In short, biologists win again.Damn, why do they keep doing that? Could it be that ... biologists are right about biology?