"Again you forget about the affects of selection, which is definitely NOT random." 
Lets make a clear point: "selection" isn't in question. Not "selection's" randomness or lack thereof; not "selection's" existence or lack thereof.
In short, any reference to "selection" is off topic at best, specious at worst, and more likely a simple-minded attempt at thread digression.
Is this single point clear? Probably not. You probably "feel" the need to argue about it in one way or another.
Nonetheless, ramblings about "selection" won't save your failed debate.
Now, if you want to talk about random mutations, that's a more worthy topic of debate.
Random (or not) "selection" is unworthy, however. It's non-controversial.
Carry on.
"Lets make a clear point: "selection" isn't in question."
I didn't say it was. I said the affects of it were.
"In short, any reference to "selection" is off topic at best, specious at worst, and more likely a simple-minded attempt at thread digression."
No, it goes to the heart of the matter. You are assuming mutations with no selection. That's nuts. It's the selection that keeps the body plan of the alligator what it is. Not the mutation rate (of which you have no idea what it is, as you made up your claims about it being slow).
BTW, your accusing ME of thread digressions is HILARIOUS since you have been digressing from one topic to another all night, in an unsuccessful attempt to back off from your many unsupported claims.
"Now, if you want to talk about random mutations, that's a more worthy topic of debate."
The two are intertwined, inseparably. I think you know this, but can't give in even an inch or your entire facade will crumble.
"Random (or not) "selection" is unworthy, however. It's non-controversial."
I never said it was controversial. I said that you were ignoring it's affects.
Keep flailing. The lurkers need some entertainment too.