"That says nothing about [the **RANDOM**] mutation rate."
Incorrect. The random mutation rate over vast amounts of time must roughly correspond to the changes seen in any given species (for Evolutionary Theory to have a snowball's chance of being correct, anyway).
Somatic change is constrained by selection. You haven't given a reference for the mutation rate.
What?!? That is not even close to evolutionary theory. Selection pressure has a much greater influence on rate of change; mutation rate has very little impact. A species with very few mutations but in an environment that places serious survival pressures on that species will see a greater evolutionary rate of change than a species with a high rate of mutation but very little pressure from its environment to change. Sharks have evolved more "slowly" than other species of fish, not because we can say anything about the "rate of mutation" in sharks versus those fish (which wouldn't be constant in either, anyway... hence the term random), but because any mutation would be unlikely to make a shark better adapted to its environment (it already fits its role in its environment very well).
Your entire argument is based on a premise about what evolutionary theory postulates that is completely wrong. If you're going to argue against something, at least understand what you are arguing against first! Jeez...