No they don't. Where did you "learn" this nonsense?
What this means is there is no scientific basis for a fish to grow claws,a reptile to grow hair or feathers.
No, what it means is that you don't understand thermodynamics.
The gene that causes these traits would have to have appeared out of nothing
No, it would appear out of prior genetic material, which is not "nothing". Try again.
Mutations when occurring are almost always regressive in nature and are not beneficial to the original species.
Please quantify "almost always" if you think you can.
They are also usually sterile
False, but don't let that stop you...
Evolution cannot nor has been demonstrated by any means what so ever.
Oh... Then what is this, or this, or this, to mention just a few out of the literally millions of confirmations of evolution and common descent?
That is no one has seen or found evidence of the vast numbers of "missing links" that natural selection or random beneficial mutation would require.
You mean other than these several hundred examples, out of the countless thousands which have been discovered?
Are you sure you know what in the hell you're talking about?
That is why when challenged on the merits no rational argument is presented only assumptions and presumptions that require as much or more faith in the unseen or unprovable as intelligent creation.
Let's put your claim to the test, shall we? You "challenge evolution on the merits", and then you can see whether we respond with "rational arguments" or "assumptions...that require...faith in the unseen or unprovable". Go for it.
It is also obvious that I have offended you and for that I apologize.I do feel that the apparent need to lash out at me personally and attempt vilify me validates my point that there is a religious aspect to evolution.
I won`t pretend to know all details of PE but in general it theorizes that at certain times for unknown reasons evolution essentially ran amok.This results in a rapid evolutionary jump in species.This is to explain the lack of transitional species and why fossils of species suddenly appear in the rock strata.It is not an implausible theory but is still a theory.
One final word.When I was in school dinosaurs were taught to be slow moving cold blooded reptiles.I suppose this was by comparing bone structure,tooth shape,etc and they compared to what we could observe in modern life.
Now because of other similarities it is believed that birds evolved from dinosaurs.One problem was that birds are warm blooded so at least in part for this, dinosaurs are now believed to be perhaps warm blooded faster moving animals.I have no idea which is correct but my point is 30 years ago disagreement on the established scientific position was rejected as stupid or uneducated.
Now that scientific opinion has or is shifting from the earlier position any one disagreeing is once again declared stupid or uneducated.I again won`t pretend to know all the evidence for the newer hypothesis but to some extent it seems to be to meld evolutionary theory.I simply don`t understand why on this issue any challenge to whatever the current thinking may be is rejected out of hand if it does not come from the position that evolution is an established fact beyond any question.
I don`t know that this is a appropriate definition of science.
I don`t begrudge you or any others their opinions.I don`t care what you think of me personally.I do think we all deserve to be courteous to each other.