Unfortunately, it is neither logical or rational to ignore the last 60 years of scientific research into genetics and embryological development and replace it with your opinion because you neither like, nor accept what the science says.
Embryological development - from a single cell to a grown organism is EXACLTY just lefts and rights. The last 60 years of verifiable science shows that when the organism starts multiplying, a cascade of protein and gene regulation kicks in. Genes and protein production are turned on and off, genes are expressed in greater or lesser amounts as cells multiply, allowing cells to specialize, multiple at different rates or modulates the production of protein to alter the position and shape that the organism grows in.
In terrestrial vertebrates - with a body plan that is generally mostly unchanged since fish - the difference between a wing, a fin and an arm is solely down to the same genes generating the same proteins being turned of and on at different times - in exactly the same way getting to New York is the same as a journey to Washington, just with different combinations of left and right.
You may not like that, and in your naive, and superficial understanding of science that leads you to conclude the are genes for constructing feathers (that’s not how it works), a collection of code for wings that are fundamentally different from arms (again no), or that macro mutations are not simply the same mutations occurring at the start of a cascade of regulation and thus produce a bigger impact than those at the end - but that is the way organisms develop.
Understanding that makes macro evolution easy to understand, as almost every change in terrestrial vertebrates boils down to a change in size and shape which is simply a change in gene regulation - producing more protein in one type of cell at a given time to produce more growth at a given time.
Understanding how life actually works makes understanding evolution as a blind process trivial: no major new structures need to be created, a wing isn’t a brand new collection of traits - a wing can simply be made by a sequential and trivial collection of regulatory changes that simply modify the order and pattern an arm grows. That’s all it is.
You may not like it, and you certainly seem to actually understand it; but that doesn’t require anything magical, it doesn’t require some arbitrarily and subjective interpretation of “information”, but that’s the conclusion to which literally all the evidence points.
You appear to have a fixation with treating individuals traits and differences as unique features and special genes that don’t exist in any way before or after - that is demonstrably not the way this works at alll: the sooner you start appreciating that nuance, the better for all of us.
