(But I can cite several events where voting ballots in the hands of little people made the U.S. government to either change policies or itself.)
So this statement is simply not true.
So you were saying?
Most mutations we have fall within a range we are already adapted to. Our genotype has some inherent malleability within which it can deal with mutations. Call it "mutation tolerance" or whatever you want. First, most mutations are recessive, that means that the affected allel will not even be expressed in the phenotype. Only if we get for one gene the same mutated allel from both parents, our phenotype will be affected, and only then the mutation has a measurable effect on us. Then there are the mutations which affect properties like eye or hair color or height, which can have a wide range of possible outcomes without being letal or otherwise disadvantageous to us. A shoe size of 10 vs. one of 9, while still being genetically determined, makes no important difference. And even outcomes which actually affect our lives like the level of aggressivenes or intelligence or the talent for different sports, and which have a genetic component and are thus open to influences by mutations, will in the end, not hamper our general ability to survive and to procreate.
The analogy was talking about mutations which fall out of the adaptable range, which are really disruptive. And of those, most are bad for us.
Sadly though, this reactor had a designed power output of 3 Watts, while the whole thing was about 30 meters high and had 3.5 meters in diameter.