The Theory of Evolution is correct.

I guess you and I see science in two different ways. When you said evolution just a "fairy tale used to explain what science cannot", it was kind of confusing to me, because evolution is science. The difference between creation "science" and actual science is the method in which either party reaches their conclusion. The Scientific Method is used by reaching a conclusion after making a hypothesis, gathering evidence, and testing. In other words, scientists gather evidence, then make a conclusion that fits the evidence. Creation "scientists", on the other hand, do it backwards. They get their conclusion first, then look for evidence that supports it. This is not science. So when you make the assumption that evolution is just something used to explain what science cannot is just plain false. Evolution is science. Every conclusion that was made is only made because it's backed by evidence.Now to transitional fossils. I see many creationists mention how "there should be transitional fossils. Where are the transitional fossils?" In truth, every fossil is a transitional fossil. Life is an ongoing change. Each and every organism you see today is evolving. Life does not jump from one species to another. I may be misunderstanding your question, but I'm trying my best. Anyway, When you want fossils that show development from one species to another, again, any fossil is an example of that. Look at it like this: it's kind of like looking at a number line, and saying "Where are all the transitional numbers?" We have fossils in a timeline, and scientists can date when each organism was alive, so when we look back on life on Earth, you see life changing slowly each period over each. Asserting that there are no transitional fossils is ludicrous.I'm not claiming to be an expert on DNA or genetics, but I have some idea of what DNA is and what its purpose is. You probably know how DNA is the "genetic blueprint" for organisms. Calling it "information" seems to be ignorant. Information is something passed between two minds. DNA is not passing from anything, it only contains sites in which only certain protiens can be made, sued by cells to make protiens. Whenever a cell divides, it copies its DNA to its two daughter cells. Now, as you know, the copying is not perfect, and sometimes mistakes can occur. It could be that an adenine was switched with a guanine. Or it could be that an entire chromosome was copied too many times. Now with the unreliable state of DNA, a mass of it is destined to change. DNA is able to be duplicated too many times to the point where a cell has too much of it, and if that cell is the zygote of an organism (the first cell, often created during conception) this organism now has more DNA than its parent(s). This DNA is also bound to change, due to the unstable nature of DNA itself. While this may or may not be the way new different DNA is formed, it is definitely possible that it could happen in nature. In essense: too much DNA is made, this new DNA mutates to something different, the end product is more, different DNA.Also, I don't see how organisms not being able to gain genetic material in any way disproves the Theory of Evolution. If you could actually, I'd like to read where you got that piece of evidence. I'm interested.