Nope and that is why I posted that last item in the article. Read it and see that evolution is impossible and why:
While evolution claims to explain the descent of one species from another, it has never been able to do so. The original explanation for how evolution transforms species, natural selection, has things backwards. Natural selection kills, it does not create anything. For evolution to be true it needed to propose a creative force which would have been able to add new traits, new functions to the simplest creatures and gradually transform them into more complex ones. The original proposal by Darwin, the melding of features from the parents, did not answer this problem, nor does the more modern version of the exchange of genetic information that occurs in procreation. Such methods do not add any information either, they just reshuffle the information which already exists in the species. Clearly this cannot be the source of increased complexity either.
With the re-discovery of genetics in the 20th Century, the Darwinists finally accepted the incorrectness of the melding theory and proposed mutations as the agent of creation of new information. They ran into the problem that with individuals receiving half their genes from each parent and half the genes of each parent being passed on to the progeny, the chances of a new mutation, even one which might be favorable, had not only a very small chance of surviving more than a few generations, but also had an almost impossible chance of spreading throughout a species. They therefore proposed that most mutations were neutral ones and by gradual accumulation they would change the species. This explanation did not even solve the problem of how difficult it was for any mutation to survive, let alone spread throughout a species.
The discovery of DNA made the above possibility, already quite unlikely and totally unproven, just about totally impossible. The high complexity of a gene and more importantly experiments showing that changing even one of the thousand DNA bases of a gene are likely to destroy functioning completely and are extremely unlikely to enhance it, presented another serious problem for evolution. This was 'solved' by proposing that gene duplication would create new functions without destroying necessary functioning. Of course, as before, this was only theory and no experimental proof of it was found to support it. The same problem of it being hard to change a gene favorably applied to such genes, the only explanatory gain was that incorrect mutations would not be deadly. Even then, this was insufficient explanation for the transformation of species. Similar genes, which are fairly common, only accomplish similar functions. The vast changes required for complete species transformation, are unexplainable without the creation of totally new genes.
With the discovery that genes themselves are just factories and are controlled by other DNA in the organism, and that a single gene often produces many proteins, this explanation was rendered inadequate. Now a new function, which was already known to most likely require more than a single new gene, would require a whole complex of DNA outside the gene to make it work when and if needed. This makes the evolutionary explanation of random, non-directed species change totally untenable and indeed biologists are beginning to call the developmental process of an organism a program. Like all programs, those for life are not made at random.
This is one of the sillier things you've asserted. Genes don't fade away, and a single mutation that a sexually reproducing creature has will appear in half his offspring. If the mutation trait is dominant, and beneficial, it will almost certainly maintain itself and take over the population in short order. If the mutation trait is recessive, it will be entirely hidden in the second generation, and will rarely appear in subsequent generations, and its growth or elimination is more a matter of chance, but it will not rapidly disappear.
To take an example that works just like the former mutation case, if a person with a single gene for brown eyes (dominant trait) moves to where everyone has blue eyes, half of his offspring will have the gene for brown eyes, and of those, half of theirs. (The absolute numbers don't decrease though, because the number of descendants also doubles in each generation)
And being dominant, the gene will express itself visibly (brown eyes). Now, if brown eyes are a neutral trait, the gene is as likely to increase in count as to decrease, but since the number of people with it is not much larger than zero, with random drift it is more likely to disappear at some point.
But if brown eyes are beneficial, or for whatever reason the people with brown eyes produce more offspring and so on than people with blue eyes, then eventually the whole country will have brown eyes.
New mutuations, if they are neutral, are no more or less susceptible to disappearing than brown eye genes in this case, if they are neutral.