My daughter is a genetic anomaly. She cannot procreate because the genetic code is mutated. She is a 45 XO or a Turner.
I'm sorry to hear that, but this does nothing to invalidate evolutionary biology. The fact that there are certain kinds of mutations which can prevent fertility (or cause early death, etc.) in no way demonstrates what you're tyring to imply -- that *all* mutations are dead ends. That is simply not the case, and has been well known for centuries.
A mule is also sterile because the dna code is broken.
No, sorry, that's not why mules are sterile.
Nature takes care of mutations.
Nature takes care of *harmful* mutations. On the other hand, nature *enhances* the reproduction of beneficial mutations.
They stop at once.
Only the severely harmful ones. Please don't make blanket claims about biology when you clearly don't have any kind of background in it.
A cat makes another cat. Period.
Evolutionary change is a reality. Period.
A bird cannot make a reptile.
No one claimed that they would. In fact, birds came from reptiles, not vice versa.
The deviancy in the genetic code won't allow it.
This is quite simply incorrect.
For material which addresses the several fallacies you've made in your argument, see:
Correction: "Evolutionary change" is a redundancy.