Hi Steven,
What a wonderfully flexible theory we have here! Your explanation
appears to make it absolutely impregnable!
However, allow me to press you on this. Is it not reasonable to
believe that the fin of a fish must lose some operational efficiency
when in process of becoming a leg, in any aqueous environment.(What
alternative environments did you have in mind?). Clearly, the alleged
transition wouldn't happen overnight; we have therefore to witness the
coming and going of many generations before the resulting leg has been
anchored to the spine and the appropriate muscles, sinews, etc (which
enable it to function properly as a leg) are in place. This being the
case, is it not then hard to imagine a creature which is neither a
fully-functioning fish, nor able to support itself on land, being a
candidate for preferential survival?
I suggest that this train of simple logic requires no great knowledge of
evolution theory, as you suggest. Glenn's suggestion that an incipient
foot might offer survival advantage is fine later on in the process, but
how do the creature and its progeny survive the long years in between
with neither fully functioning fins nor feet?
Surely this argument gives the lie to the fatuous belief that amphibia
evolved from fishes. A similar analysis of other alleged 'transitions'
leads to similar conclusions. What all this highlights, in my view, is
the gullibility of the evolution lobby; it also casts doubt on the many
other 'scientific truths' so confidently claimed in support of the
theory.
Vernon