Apologies if this is slightly off-topic.

As an amateur, I picked up on a recurring theme in the post and the comments that seems somewhat glossed over: The size of the sample. The complexity of evolution, whether strictly random or random 2.0, operates over a set population of the species in question. Obviously, homo sapiens today is exponentially more populous than it was a few hundred thousand years ago. Should not evolution today be exponentially more manifest? How can the enormous complexity of evolution be explained in the context of a population minute in size and concomitant randomness to where we are today? Common sense, while having no business in scientific research, indicates far more factors may be involved than mere randomness.

I yield the floor.