Floundering Atheists

When I visit my local bookstore, I sometimes scantly read some books under the subject of evolution.  There are at least two authors who point to the flatfish as a bad design.  Flatfish may also be known as flounders, halibut, sole,,, etc.

Some evolutionists believe that if we wanted to create a better design, we would have designed a skate (member of the shark family) instead.  I say, not so fast.

Why am I skeptical of their claims?  I live in Palm Beach and just off the shore line of Palm Beach is a species of flatfish.  I have swum in shallow water over the habitat of this unique fish.  It is very good at camouflage.  In fact it is so good, I have accidentally touched at least one of them as I placed my hand on them.  Unless I am looking directly at one, I probably will not see it.  I have also noted that when a flatfish is startled, it will dart way just over the surface of the sand at seemingly high speeds.  I have even wondered if they utilize some sort of hydrodynamic advantage by hovering just above the surface of the sand at higher velocities.

I think people like Richard Dawkins saw the flatfish at a local fish market and his evolutionary paradigm simply told him that it was a bad design.  Unlike someone who walked into a fish market, my personal experience gave me insights into the flatfish.  If I ever get the opportunity to investigate other species these atheists use to back their claims, I wonder what else that I might find which would elucidate the subject matter.  It seems to me that it is unscientific to look at a fish and say that it is a bad design.  This is where common sense starts entering into the picture.

If the flatfish is such a bad design, then why are there 500 species based on the same design?

http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/flatfish.aspx

If the flatfish is a bad design, then why didn’t they all die off a long time ago?

If the flatfish is a bad design, then why doesn’t it change its design?

How do you evolve a flatfish anyway?  It will probably surprise you that I believe in some type of evolution.  I don’t believe that they evolved by the process of random mutations.  I believe it is possible that ecological and environmental factors guided a body design toward a new direction.  For me, Lamarkism is more believable.  Despite the millions of years it took to evolve the flatfish, you still have a fish and a fish is still a fish.  It is one of the most unique creatures in our modern world.

Darwin's theory of evolution (keeping in mind that he did not know much about the mechanisms of heredity and development) required that evolution occur in small, gradual steps. Each step of the way must be evolutionarily advantageous, or it will never catch on. But then, how could flatfish evolution be possible? What possible advantage could be gained by having an eye which migrates only part way to the other side of one's head? Until the eye reaches the other side of the head, it seems like there is no advantage at all, or even a disadvantage.

I agree there seems to be no advantage until the eye it on the other side of the head.

http://skepticsplay.blogspot.com/2009/02/darwins-flatfish-flounder.html