The evolution story goes something like this: life somehow arose in goo and evolved to you by the way of the zoo. Has ridiculous as it sounds some people actually believe it's true. But surely if it is true we can find documentation of organisms evolving novel features and abilities that can give credence to the evolution story.
Is there any empirical, observational documentation of an organism population evolving camouflage abilities on the fly like an Indonesian Mimic Octopus or Anole Lizard? Or an organism evolve special clawed feet to walk vertically and upside down on all walls like an ant? Is their documentation of any creature population evolving feathers or a blow hole or gills? How about a fruitfly evolving glands to produce silk or a spineret or bioluminence abilities or anything of that sort?
How about an organism evolving antennas, a blow hole, gills, a shell, eyes, baleen plates, fluke, arms, legs, trunk, claws, ink dispersal abilities etc. ? Just any radical novel feature or ability would suffice.
You see, it takes radical changes to get a cell from goo to all the diversity of life we see today. But I have yet to see any documentation of at least one example of any organisms observed while occuring evolve any radical novel abilities or features. It seems that it is an assumption it happened but without the empirical evidence to back it up.
And if you didn't know, empirical, observational evidence is part of the scientific method. Thus if there is no empirical, observational evidence then it is not scientific:
" The scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. *To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on empirical* and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning."
Rules for the study of natural philosophy", Newton 1999, pp. 794–6, from Book 3, The System of the World
Moreover can the events of the story really be scientifically tested and repeated to even make it plausible? I think not.
Believe me, I scoured the scientific literature and couldn't find one example. Even the late Dr. Lynn Margulis was in the same boat:
"This is the issue I have with neo-Darwinists: They teach that what is generating novelty is the accumulation of random mutations in DNA, in a direction set by natural selection. If you want bigger eggs, you keep selecting the hens that are laying the biggest eggs, and you get bigger and bigger eggs. But you also get hens with defective feathers and wobbly legs. Natural selection eliminates and maybe maintains, but it doesn't create.... [N]eo-Darwinists say that new species emerge when mutations occur and modify and organism. I was taught over and over again that the accumulation of random mutations led to evolutionary change-led to new species. I believed it until I looked for evidence." http://discover.coverleaf.com/discovermagazine/201104?pg=68#pg68 "
It doesn't have to be recorded in a lifetime. There could be records of certain organisms throughout the centuries documenting clear cut radical evolutionary changes of organisms developing novel features and abilities. But none exists has far as I know.
So please present your valid documentation and please stay on topic.
Thank you 
