Jovaro, I don't think there is any argument about the fact that genetic/morphological information can be lost. In other words an organism can lose something. Cave fish have lost their eyesight. That is not the trick.
The trick is getting eyesight in the first place, not losing it. Penguins may or may not have had flying ancestors. If they did, we sure have not found them yet! But if they did, the fact that they lost the ability to fly is not an issue, really. The point the evolutionist might make about penguins is that they seem to have acquired the information and skills to use those stubby little wings for an entirely different purpose.
HOWEVER, be careful about that argument, because until we have found any possible precursors to the penguin, it is just as valid to say they were created to be what they are and never had any flying ancestors at all.
Also, in my last post about the fittest, I did not argue from a reproductive point of view at all. I showed the circularity of the definition without talking about reproduction.
If you want to make your point about a partial wing being beneficial evolutionarily, however, you will need to show some kind of evidence of that which is not a matter of imagination. As it is, when I did not want one of our chickens to fly out of the coop, all I had to do was trim a few outside feathers on one side! With that minor an alteration on a part of the chicken which had no nerves, no blood supply at the point where they were cut, and which the chicken would shed and regrow anyway, flight was impossible.
One of the things we have not mentioned here is how much has to be changed in the body of an animal, be it mammal or reptile, before it could 'become' a bird. The entire bone structure must change. The lungs must change. The breastbone itself must go 'upside down'. The musculature must change. The idea that these necessary mutations could take place one on top of another, regardless of the amount of time involved, is bizarre. Mathematically it is impossible. You see, only one out of a thousand mutations even has a beneficial possibility. So not only must the population surivive a thousand negative or silent mutations to get one decent one, but the fact of sexual reproduction usually wipes out that mutation anyway.
Genetically there is no possible way for a reptile to evolve into a bird, or a fish to a mammal. It doesn't matter how much time you give. It's simply not possible.
However, to admit that means that one must admit to some kind of a God. And that implies moral accountability.
And that, Jovaro, is precisely what Aldous Huxley ("Darwin's bulldog") and so many others, including Richard Dawkins, refuse to allow into their lives. They want to be accountable to no one but themselves.
Evolution, at its foundation, is based on the DESIRE to be one's own boss and escape any moral accountability. It has zero evidence apart from variation, which no one is even arguing about.