“Why would a fish need to develop the capacity to breathe on land if it is a sea-bound organism?”
If it can breathe on land, it’s no longer a sea-bound organism.
But seriously, the entire point of the science is to show that there are reasons to think it happened. What drove that mutation is a separate issue. But we can see that there was life in the water, and no life on land. And then there was life on the land. So the obvious conclusion is that sea life became land life.
“If this theory were put in reverse,”
Theories don’t reverse.
"then human sailors would spontaneously begin to develop gills in their multi-millenial preparation to become fish...”
No, dipshit. If evolution were reversed, then all life on land would turn into the life forms they came from, until something went back into the water. Not just sailors. I mean, gene pools, entire species evolve, not just sailors. This is a stupid thought experiment.
“The theory of evolution cannot explain these problems so it conviniently overlooks and ignores them.”
But it’s not a problem. It’s just you highlighting your ignorance.
“I have read lot's”
THat’s not the plural of ‘lot.’
“of literature both for and against evolution and my opinion is that Life on Earth is just too amazing and creative to be the product of random, chaotic natural selection. Cheers.”
And your credentials to make such a decision? I mean, I should care what you think because….what? You took a science elective in High School?
