Given the amount of DNA that is not "used" in the building of an individual, if I understand it correctly, there's no telling what the number of combinations already available for adaptation in the genes might be.

But I think this distinction is not really important, ezcept rhetorically. Leaving the preferences of religious organizations to one side, the organism produces off-spring which have slightly or dramatically different traits --a human with slightly stronger fingers, say.

That human, being better at barred chords, makes better music, and attracts more mates.

As a result he has more children than some other humans. The strong-fingers gene-shift persists in the subsequent generation and gets cross bred into other family trees thus spreading through a per centage of the species.

Obviously, the consequence is the same whether the code for strong fingers is in the genetic makeup or was a freak reaction of a cell being hit by a gamma ray or something.

I think this "monster" theory is just a rhetorical device designed to make evolutionary theory appear discreditable.

A