Fraid not, read Nachman and Crowell "Estimate of the Mutation Rate Per Nucleotide for Humans" Genetics, 156, (Sept. 2000): pp. 297-304. Also read "Genetic Entropy" by John C. Sandford, 2008.
You have an extremely poor track record of representing primary scientific literature in your favor. Last time you tried this, you tried to cite a 'study' from Cornell that didn't even exist.
I'll still read those sources when I get the chance, but I'm not exactly holding my breath.
The fossil record says otherwise, why are there systematic gaps between genera and phyla?
Because fossils are extremely rare. Why would you expect to find a complete fossil record of every living thing that hasn't ever existed?
Of course, if there were no fossils AT ALL, the evidence from genetics would still be more than enough on its own.
Why Gould and Eldridge come up with punctuated equilibrium?
Punctuated equilibrium is not 'large changes', individual to individual. It's relatively brief periods of rapid changes - still small, and still cumulative - that result in relatively 'fast' speciation, followed by stasis.
It's also not mutually exclusive to the concept of gradualism. They have exactly the same mechanisms, just different circumstances. They can both happen. Some scientists put more emphasis on one or the other, and as in all fields, there is ongoing debate.
There is no debate about whether evolution happens. There is only the overwhelming consensus, and a minuscule fringe of dissenters.
Fraid so, the probability that all the extreme fine tuning of the universe could happen by chance is basically zero.
You don't know that, of course. You have an extemely narrow experience of what constitutes 'life'. Given an
infinite set of possible conditions, there is no telling how many of them could have resulted in a universe where intelligent life could exist, in forms that are unimagined by you or anyone else. It's a gussied-up argument from ignorance.
Which is all to say nothing of the theological implications. You are proposing a god whose intended purpose was to create life, who couldn't find a better way than to make a universe that is 99.99999999999999999999% deadly to us. This is gargantuanly wasteful. If hydrogen molecules could think, they would have a
much better case than humans do, in thinking the universe was created with them in mind.
All of that is really beside the point, though. Your implication earlier was that the idea of the anthropic principle as evidence for Yahweh was 'well supported'. Which is
false.