So you're defining a complex mutation by the number of base pairs that change?
How many DNA base pairs would need to change to constitute a complex adaptation as compared to a non-complex one? Does it matter where on the genome the DNA changes, considering that tweaking developmental genes leads to exponentially different characteristics whereas changing base pairs in other parts of the genome may do nothing at all?
On top of that, if you're going to define a complex mutation by the number of base pairs involved (since you effectively disregard recombination as nonrandom) and you want to see this scale of viable mutation in the last hundred years in order to demonstrate evolution in action - then you're actually asking for evidence against evolutionary theory, which indicates that random mutation causes large changes over millions of years, not hundreds.
Interestingly, I'm pretty sure much of what is considered "errors in replication" are processes we simply don't understand.
No. Errors in replication are a fundamental part of the chemistry involved in DNA polymerase activity. We understand it very well.
"Normal sexual recombination is random to a certain extent." ; Are you sure about that? I would ssay that the only thing "random" about it is that we don't understand the process.
Then you would be wrong. We understand the process very well. Segregation of chromosomes at meiosis during gamete production is a random process. It's a coin flip whether the sperm gets the maternal chromosome or the paternal one. Even genes on the same chromosome are randomly recombined due to crossing over.
"Even genes on the same chromosome are randomly recombined due to crossing over."
But the points at which the recombination take place are not.
"On top of that, if you're going to define a complex mutation by the number of base pairs involved (since you effectively disregard recombination as nonrandom) and you want to see this scale of viable mutation in the last hundred years in order to demonstrate evolution in action - then you're actually asking for evidence against evolutionary theory, which indicates that random mutation causes large changes over millions of years, not hundreds."
What you seem to be saying here is that neo-Darwinism is untestable. However, there are ways to speed up frequency of mutations in the lab, without affecting their distribution.
"No. Errors in replication are a fundamental part of the chemistry involved in DNA polymerase activity. We understand it very well."
We understand _some_ of it very well. But, for instance, it seems that E. Coli can actually regulate how well DNA polymerase operates, based on stress conditions:
http://www.pubmedcentral.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=14617178
So, the regulation of the error-production/correction mechanism is controlled by the cell itself. It appears that if it senses that it needs adaptation, it will employ more error-prone methods of gene duplication.
I don't doubt that in the future, it will also be determined that _which_ genes are the subject of mutagenesis will be shown to be influenced by the cellular control system. Perhaps it already has, and I am just not yet aware of the article.