Yes.
First of all, most DNA is non-coding. We don't know everything about why it exists, but we do know that copy errors in non-coding areas generally have little effect.
Second, many DNA words have alternate spellings that produce the same effect. These variations appear to be silent, but may be useful later on.
Third, in sexually reproducing organisms, a single mutation is often hidden as a recessive gene. Some are multivariate, diluted, so to speak.
What you appear to be arguing against is saltation, the appearance of a mutation with a dramatic effect. This doesn't happen often, if at all. Evolution dismissed saltation in the 1940 modern synthesis. It isn't needed to explain gradual change, and it isn't needed by punk eek (which is still gradual change).
I don't expect you to follow this, but for those reading along, all populations carry many mutations or variations, no one of which is critical or dramatic. Populations change in a statistical way, not by the appearance of dramatic mutations. This is true even with punctuated equilibrium.
I do follow. Analogous to millions of microsoft computer errors producing more adaptive programs.
Sure!