What you’re proposing, however, sounds like apologetics itself.
There is an awful lot of speculation about the consequences of gene insertion and deletion. It *may* lead to this, or *could* cause that.
While that’s interesting thinking and worth pursuing in genetics, *may*’s and *could*’s are not a real substantial supports for the ToE
Quite true, and immediately after the publication of Darwin's book, such speculation became quite rampant. So widespread, in fact, that many hypotheses were fostered, and investigated. Having a structural backbone to deal with, biologists were able to flesh out the theory in immense detail.
"While that’s interesting thinking and worth pursuing in genetics,"
It's interesting that you phrase this expression in this manner. What you really mean to say is "While that’s interesting thinking and worth pursuing in evolutionary studies," but you just can't bring yourself to say that, can you? Behold the existence of the blinders you use to constrain your vision and your imagination.
"... *may*’s and *could*’s are not a real substantial supports for the ToE"
This also is correct. In my colloquy, I was rambling on with mental exercises designed to illustrate how such thinking might originate and be pursued.
The substantial supports of actually investigating these suggestions have been carried out by independent researchers, and the conjectures proven rewarding, especially following the development of the ability to actually read changes in the genomes of various animals.
It can be shown that various species have developed an ability, and then diverged biologically, or they have diverged first, and then developed parallel abilities completely independently. It's a fascinating field of study.