The above paragraph seems a bit soap box to me - you don't really address any point here in a constructive way.
Fairy tales like this often amaze me, but it is a significant demonstration of how much faith there is in TOE. And its not just your tale, its Dawkins tale. Creationists have three basic stories that create the foundation of their faith in the scriptures of Genesis. The first is creation and the fall. The second is the flood of Noah. And the third is the Tower of Babel dispersion. "Science" advocates like to riddicule us for faith in such "folklore" and "mysticism.
All the while they have constructed a myriad of mysical sories that you would have to belive to adhere to TOE. One such as the fairytale just shared by you.
You see, God created the hallibut to show you evidence that TOE is wrong. The fish begins it's metamorphosis from symetrical fish to asymetrical fish after its first month of life. The process takes several weeks. During this time, this fish becomes greatly disfigured. Its skull deforms, and one eye begins the migration from one side to the other. The spots/camoflauge also don't appear until this time.
During this metamorphosis The fish has to be at a great competitve disadvantage in any environment. It is not fully camoflauged, it doesn't lay fully on the bottom of the ocean yet, it's skull is being deformed every day. And its eye is somewhere between symetrical and somewhere else along its pathway to its final resting place. But it does survive by design, not nature.
And we are to believe that this several week process is a competitive advantage for the hallibut. And the evolution fairy tale as presented suggests that a series of mutations for this entire metamorphosis happenned one by one over millions of years. And each one was naturally selected, because it generated some reproductive advantage in its environment.
Like I said I don't really know anything about fish but wouldnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t "not fully camaflauged" be better than not camouflaged? Being vulnerable during metamorphoses is nothing new Ã¢â‚¬â€œ butterflies, moths, and flies are also vulnerable during this stage. I didnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t realize that the flat fish wasnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t born flat and side ways but it doesnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t really change anything because metamorphosis fits nicely within the framework of the TOE.
Well, my mind isnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t a poorly trained scientific mind and I have failed to see where you have rationalized. The crux of your concern is basically that metamorphosis leaves an organism vulnerable therefore a process such as metamorphosis canÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t be an advantage therefore the said process couldnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t have evolved. There are a few problems with this premise. The first is that you seem to be assuming that the TOE is able to see more than Ã¢â‚¬Å“one move aheadÃ¢â‚¬Â and that the evolution of a system is of singular functionality. The second is that metamorphosis has been extensively studied by evolutionary biologist and is readily available in the literature.
I'm sorry but that just begs the reasoning process. Even my poorly trained scientific mind can't rationalize that one. And there are a myriad of such fairytales in TOE. The hallibut declares the glory of God. Maybe someday, you will open your eyes to see it. Without that glory, you will just stumble in the darkness of TOE.
I'll stick with the creation story and Noah's flood for now. They at least are reasonable IMHO.
Reasonable? How? You think it is reasonable that a global flood occurred and a man was able to gather all of the animals from all over the world and secure and feed them on a boat for a month or two and then redistribute the animals all over the world when the flood stopped? Not to mention how did he get the animals off of his own continent once the flood ended Ã¢â‚¬â€œ how did Australian organisms get back to Australia? On top of this Ã¢â‚¬â€œ you think it is reasonable that this all occurred a few thousand years ago without leaving massive damage on the Earth?