On the contrary, that is another misconception of evolution. Unlike "Well God did it", it does have clear predictions and can be disproven.
Vernon: However, allow me to press you on this. Is it not reasonable to
believe that the fin of a fish must lose some operational efficiency
when in process of becoming a leg, in any aqueous environment.(What
alternative environments did you have in mind?). >>
Not at all. What is unreasonable is to presume that this is the case.
Vernon: I suggest that this train of simple logic requires no great knowledge of
evolution theory, as you suggest. Glenn's suggestion that an incipient
foot might offer survival advantage is fine later on in the process, but
how do the creature and its progeny survive the long years in between
with neither fully functioning fins nor feet?>>
As was pointed out, there is no need to presume that the intermediate form is a disadvantage just because it is non-functioning. For wings for instance this can easily be demonstrated. Similarly for fish, the ability to get out into the mud planes might have been an ability which increased survival through the ability to escape from predators or scavenge for food.
Vernon:Surely this argument gives the lie to the fatuous belief that amphibia
evolved from fishes. A similar analysis of other alleged 'transitions'
leads to similar conclusions. What all this highlights, in my view, is
the gullibility of the evolution lobby; it also casts doubt on the many
other 'scientific truths' so confidently claimed in support of the
theory.>>
Well, feel free to cast some doubts on evolution. Realize that personal incredulity is not an accepted form of logic.