PER CURIAM.
The judgment of conviction is affirmed upon a holding that (1) any impropriety in two isolated comments made by the trial judge during the jury selection process was not preserved for appellate review by a proper and timely objection, motion for mistrial, or request for corrective instruction, Foreman v. State, 47 So.2d 308 (Fla. 1958); Pegues v. State, 361 So.2d 433 (Fla.1st DCA 1978); Flynn v. State, 351 So.2d 377 (Fla.4th DCA 1977); McCrea v. State, 210 So.2d 724 (Fla.3d DCA 1968); see also Mack v. State, 270 So.2d 382 (Fla.3d DCA 1972), and the comments were not so pernicious as to cause us to recognize them as fundamental error; (2) the refusal of the trial court to give a specified requested instruction is harmless when the instructions as a whole clearly and adequately enabled the jury to consider the theory of the defense, Creamer v. State, 205 So.2d 356 (Fla.2d DCA 1967); Darty v. State, 161 So.2d 864 (Fla.2d DCA 1964).
Affirmed.