Is your son a programmer for IBM? There's a big difference between being able to open a game of FreeCell and being able to code a computer program.
The "fancy language" used in various specialities is not used so that people won't have a clue what we're talking about, it's used because common language doesn't have a word for a certain concept. The only other alternative is to stick in a couple of paragraphs explaining which concept you're talking about every time you need to discuss something, and that would just be silly if the concepts are common knowledge among the group. I'm sure that you would probably be able to understand most of this stuff if it was all explained to you. However, right now your understanding of genetics is very shallow, yet you seem to think that you are capable of determining what types of evolution could and could not occur. The fact remains, you did not know either the term or the concept of somatic hypermutation before I explained it to you. I doubt you know either the term or the concept of imprinting, Robertsonian fusion, Muller's ratchet, retrotransposon, or paracentric inversion, just to list a few. There's a reason people spend years studying these things--and it's not so they have time to memorize the vocabulary lists.
As for your source--same old same old. UTEOTW has demonstrated many times mechanisms for addition of new information to a genome, and I have demonstrated that mutation is not inherently bad. That slays the first portion ("Mutations - Evolution's Raw Material").
This paragraph makes me want to dress up in sackcloth and go wailing up and down the streets:
So they're saying that the entirely novel plasmids cooked up my mutation and natural selection is an invalid example of evolution simply because bacteria are known to undergo conjugation??? Yeah, they strung that straw man up on the gibbet.
That's like my saying that your child born with the first CCR5 mutation isn't novel because the child is the result of sexual reproduction. Completely irrelevant! And we have more mis-use of Gould's name. Here's a flower for his grave.
As for examples of genes that were added new to our genomes and not present in apes:
A Vk immunoglobulin gene
Three salivary amylase genes--one is present in chimpanzees, the other two came about via duplication of the first.
Immunoglobulin receptor genes FCGR1A, FCGR1B, FCGRIC from an ancestral Fcgr 1 gene.
Of course I'm sure you will disregard these examples since you weren't there to see them happen. Considering they happen once in multiple millions of years, it's kind of asking a lot to demand to be there right at that moment. Yet the fact that we don't see oodles of new genes popping into existence around us is supposed to be evidence against evolution--when evolution doesn't claim that they are anyways.
Then there are the frogs, which make a huge variety of short antimicrobial peptides. These are problematic for YE-ers who believe in modification of original kinds without additon of new genes because there is such a variety down even to the species level that explaining each as the offspring of an original kind would require making practically every species of frog an original kind, once again demonstrating the arbitrariness of the "kind" designation.
But I have yet to receive a clear answer from you--do you now think that mutation is not necessarily detrimental and that mutation can lead to increase in specificity?