Do you truly think it fair expecting creationists to prove the changes were not the result of mutations, when you can't prove that they were?
That asked, the chances of the mutations required between human and primate, occurring in the right gene and often enough in the population to change the genome of the entire species, are next to naught.
By themselves, random base substitutions, and deletions, resulting in beneficial changes to the organism, do not occur frequently enough.
When the assumption was made in the 1930s that point mutations could be the cause of an organism's progress, they could not properly calculate the chances of that happening. We can forgive them, for this assumption.
We now know how tiny the odds are, and so can not be forgiven for making the same mistake.
As for genetic insertions and recombinations, while occurring fairly often, aren't random processes like mutations, but are functions inherent in the genome.
Doctor Shapiro states: "In the pre-DNA era, students were all taught that genetic change is random and accidental. Because the molecular details were inaccessible, this was the
default assumption. But once we learned about DNA carrying hereditary
information, we could research the
details of how changes occur. We no
longer needed to assume. We could
investigate."
As his article describes, genetic recombination is not at all random:
Take 2: Why Genetic Recombination Is Not Random, and How Cells Take Advantage of Non-randomness | HuffPost Impact
Regards, aristotle
Edited by aristotle, : No reason given.
"I have learned from my own embarrassing experience how easy it is to concoct remarkably persuasive Darwinian explanations that evaporate on closer inspection." - Daniel Dennet