What aberrations? You've got an animal population with genes coding for different characters. You can mix and match genes and get variety. You can isolate some members and perhaps lose something genetically. I mean Africans are more likely to get sickle cell anemia for instance. But when you cross breed animals, mostly you get alternative linked characters like eye color and coat color coming out.
Now you say hidden abberations come out like some kind of demon. I don't think so. Any mutations caused by a mutagen would not come out as a new character. Any damage that can not be repaired would cause tumors and cancer. I don't think new genes are created. I think genes can be lost and traits can become fixed.
Sometimes that is the case. But even when it is, it can still result in a new trait.
One example of new variance is the Glycophorin A somatic cell mutation (Jensen, R. H., S. Zhang, et al. (1997) which has been identified in some Tibetans, which allows them to endure prolongued periods at altitudes of 7,000 feet without succumbing to apoplexia, or altitude sickness. A different, but similar mutation was identified in high altitude natives in the Andes.
http://jeb.biologists.org/cgi/content/full/204/18/3151
Another example of that is the CCR5-delta 32 mutation. About 10% of whites of European origin now carry it. But the incidence is only 2% in central Asia, and is completely absent among East Asians, Africans, and American Indians. It appears to have suddenly become relatively common among white Europeans about 700 years ago, evidently as a result of the Black Plague, indicating another example of natural selection allowing one gene dominance in a changing environment. It is harmless (or neutral) in every respect other than its one clearly beneficial feature; if one inherits this gene from both parents, they will be especially resistant (if not immune) to AIDS.
(source: Science-Frontiers.com / PBS.org)
Theres also a family in Germany who are already unusually strong. But in one case, a child was born with a double copy of an anti-myostatin mutation carried by both parents. The result is a herculian kiddo who was examined at only a few days old for his unusually well-developed muscles. By four years old, he had twice the mucle mass of normal children, and half the fat. Pharmaceutical synthesis of this mutation is being examined for potential use against muscular dystrophy or sarcopenia.
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Science/2004/06/24/512617.html
There is also a family in Connecticut that has been identified as having hyperdense, virtually unbreakable bones:
Members of this family carry a genetic mutation that causes high bone density. They have a deep and wide jaw and bony growth on the palate. Richard P. Lifton, M.D., Ph.D., chair of the Department of Genetics, along with Karl L. Insogna, M.D., professor of medicine and director of the Yale Bone Center, and colleagues, traced the mutation to a gene that was the subject of an earlier study. In that study researchers showed that low bone density could be caused by a mutation that disrupts the function of a gene called LRP5. In the recent study, the Yale team mapped the familys genetic mutation to the same chromosome segment in LRP5. It made us wonder if a different mutation increased LRP5 function, leading to an opposite phenotype, that is, high bone density, Lifton said.
Family members, according to the investigators, have bones so strong they rival those of a character in the 2000 movie Unbreakable. If there are living counterparts to the [hero] in Unbreakable, who is in a terrible train wreck and walks away without a single broken bone, theyre members of this family, said Lifton. They have extraordinarily dense bones and there is no history of fractures. These people have about the strongest bones on the entire planet.
http://info.med.yale.edu/external/pubs/ym_au02/findings.html
We've also identified an emerging population of tetrachromatic women who can see a bit of the normally invisible ultraviolet spectrum.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4128183
I agree sons don't look exactly like their fathers. Alot depends on the mother.
That's part of what I meant about the gene pool inhibiting abberations, if the mother has genes from the larger pool.
But you seem to be agreeing with me when you say the gene pool is reduced. I said it shrinks. Same thing.
No it doesn't. Cut it in half, and both sides may grow -albeit differently. That's not the same thing.
If there's something important that doesn't get passed on, it affects the population. I think, if you start with a pool that represents the original kind, with every possible variation present, then a new population that could be missing a factor or two is possible and traits would become fixed.
There's no such thing as an original kind. can you cite any two animals which science considers closely-related but which you consider to be specially-created unrelated to anything else?
I think after further speciation you might get deformities but the kind of animal wouldn't change. At least, I've never seen any evidence of it. Some flightless birds use their wings as flippers but I don't think they are becoming fish even though their environment isn't the typical bird environment.
And losing the ability to fly as well as the ability to run is not a deformity? As you've just demonstrated, some deformities can result in enhancements that are beneficial and thus passed on.
I seriously doubt limits would not exist. Limits are everywhere in nature.
There is a limit to how specialized something may become, because eventually, it can no longer change with the environment. The more generalized the design, the more adaptable it is. But that is the only limit.
