It's not being picky, it's you writing as if you don't understand what we are talking about. I thought you might not have meant that, but forgot about it when I

It's not being picky, it's you writing as if you don't understand what we are talking about. I thought you might not have meant that, but forgot about it when I began writing. Sorry. Please don't complain because I misinterpreted you when you wrote something unclear, though. In terms of experiments, I dunno, man. You're pretty much going to have to let that one go - you can never have experiments with animals over a certain size. If you can manage reading about bacterial experiments, though, that's been done - here (http://www.rasmusen.org/x/2006/11/24/evolution-experiments-with-bacteria/ http://www.rasmusen.org/x/2006/11/24/evolution-experiments-w...) may be a good place to start. Bacteria don't modify limbs, but they can evolve new metabolic mechanisms in experiment time, which I think is comparable. For larger animals, see the fossil record. There really are some incredible examples - I'll show you if you're interested. I still don't see what mechanism you're claiming inhibits parts of the genome from mutation. You accept that mutation occurs and think there are parts where it can't, correct? Though this would make sense if you were assuming a Creator wanted only microevolution to happen, but you can't just assume the things you're trying to prove. With no assumptions, there is no reason for these prohibitions on mutations to exist (other than on crucial DNA where protections have evolved because the functions are so important to life - cell duplication, for example). There are differences all over human DNA, not just in one special spot. What, other than the religious aspect, is convincing you that mutation spares parts of the genome?