Welcome Winston!
The deep-sea Angler had to have been created with all its special equippment fully functional.
This is not true, though it is the basis for many arguments against evolution. Many call this "irreducible complexity". There are easy ways to envision evolution of attributes that the passage states are impossible. For example:
Ah, but there is a problem -- her next meal annot see the bait, since it is too dark under more than a mile of seawater. Starvation sets in while she waits for her first deep-sea fish dinner... The only possibility is that God created the Angler fish with all the fully-functional equipment it needed to survive at great depths. To solve the darkness problem, God created a special kind of light on the bait.
OR, the Angler fish didn't always live in lightless conditions. Perhaps the lure evolved first while the species lived in a more lighted environment. Subsequent mutations that made the lure more striking were selected for due to increased hunting success. Eventually a mutation occurred producing a glowing lure - once this occurred, the angler fish was free to colonize an environment previous inaccessible, and perhaps devoid of predators - the absolute darkness of the deep sea.
This is speculation, but is not unlikely let alone impossible. The passage you cite makes the assumption that the fish lived in darkness before adapting, rather than the more likely case that the fish developed an adaptation that allowed it to move into dark hunting grounds, potentially with fewer predators or competition - a great selective advantage.
if the first Anglers were surface fish and lost their air bladders, (through let's say, some unexplainable genetic mutation) and then sank to the bottom of the sea, they would have been crushed.
Evolution is usually not an all-or-nothing situation, though the author you cite would have you believe so. It is quite possible that the size of the swim bladder decreased slowly over hundreds or thousands of generations. At the same time, adaptation to the pressure could have developed gradually.
FYI, there is also very blatant errors in the passage, causing me to doubt the author's knowledge or intent:
Research scientists have broken down Luciferase into more than 1,000 proteins, but they still do not know how the heatless light is produced. Someone someday may figure out how God made this heatless light.
Luciferase consists of only two protein subunits, not 1,000 (there is no such thing as an enzyme consisting of 1,000 proteins). Also, the production of light by luciferase has been very well characterized by scientists, and is no mystery. A
reference, though technical.
Finally as a stylistic note, it is good form to lay out your ideas in your own words and support them with quotes or references, rather than just quote someone else's words.
Please let me know if you have any questions...
™ Version 4.2