Evolution debate persists because it's not science

The Sun News ^ | February 23, 2009 | By Raymond H. Kocot

[allmendream]

You in post #557: “but not all those *failed* plans need be fatal, as in the case of limbs developing to flippers. A limb going to flipper is not a serious enough failure in change that the individual would not not make it to birth. That is not a fatal birth defect.

But what good would a partially formed limb that is transitioning from leg to flipper be? It would be a liability to a land creature, leaving it more susceptible to injury and death as the land creature could not use a hybrid leg/flipper for locomotion very easily, nor could it use a hybrid arm/flipper to gather food.”

Obviously a seal doesn’t see the same problem in having a partial flipper partial leg that you do. And your later claim that I was the one that brought it up?

You in Post #640 “Nobody said anything about transitional limbs being useless either and yet you keep harping on that as if someone stated it. No one brought it up but you.

I said that a transitional limb does not function as well as a fully formed one for the purposes it’s used for. A transitional flipper/limb isn’t as useful for walking and running as a fully formed leg nor would it be as useful for swimming as a fully formed flipper. Watching seals lurch along on the ice demonstrates that.”

But obviously a seal not swimming as well as if it had a fully functional flipper or walking as well as if it had a fully functional leg is not a detriment to seals survival. They both swim well enough and walk well enough to survive and thrive.

Doesn’t seal survival demonstrate to you that your premise is fundamentally flawed?

If not then there is little sense one can impart to you.