[Liberty1970]

So which is it? Is mutation not powerful enough to explain a 2% genetic and 6% genomic difference over six to seven million years? Or is mutation so powerful that a species would go extinct from mutation over six to seven million years? It cannot possibly be both.

Of course it can be both, because we are talking about two different things. As a practical matter we will go extinct at observed mutation rates in far less than 6-7 Mya. But if for some reason we did not, then natural selection as a sifting mechanism would only fix 1600 or so new mutations in the population as a whole, far less than the 2% or 6% figure.

What you are not getting is that the much larger change that is causing the overall extinction due to loss of fitness is not becoming fixed (that is, the harmful mutations don't need to spread throughout the entire population), whereas for meaningful evolution to occur, fixation must occur. Or to put it another way - we are genetically changing, and much more quickly than standard evolutionary theory predicts, but it is not driven by natural selection and the drift is thus not coherent.

[allmendream]

How can it be both?

Either mutation is not sufficient to accomplish a 2% genetic and 6% genomic change over six to seven million years; thus there would be much LESS than a 2% and 6% change in DNA over several million years.

OR.....

Mutation is so robust that over six to seven million years there would be much MORE than a 2% and 6% change in DNA, so much mutation in fact that no species could even SURVIVE that level of mutation.

Do you have any evidence of a species going extinct due to high mutation rates?

Bacteria have a gene for an “error prone” DNA polymerase that they turn on when the bacteria is undergoing stress. This deliberate increase in their mutation rate is an adaptive mechanism. Now why do you suppose a bacteria would intentionally increase its mutation rate while undergoing stress?