This is from Wikipedia

[Link: en.wikipedia.org]

"Paleontologists SUGGEST that it was an intermediate form between fish such as Panderichthys, which lived about 380 million years ago, and early tetrapods" but they don't know for sure. These people are guessing and as Tom stated there is no conclusive evidence.

These same paleontologists claimed for the longest that humanoids and Neanderthals did not coexist. That neanderthals where the precursor for humanoids.

[Link: abc.net.au]

"New evidence has emerged that Neanderthals co-existed with anatomically modern humans for at least 1,000 years in central France."

[Link: accessexcellence.org]

"New evidence from mitochondrial DNA analyses indicates that the Neanderthal hominid was not related to human ancestors."

Most of us don't disagree on evolution as "An Origin of Species" but evolution can not be tested as to being the source of life. Yet the evolutionist want it taught in school as the end be all to the answer of where life came from and that's not very scientific.

you do know that any retard can write any BS they want on wiki? you do also know that no one can know if this particular individual had kids or not, but an other individual exactly like him most likely did?

But do you know the real reason I don't care if some retard wrote on wiki that scientists have no uidea what they are talking about? I googled tiktaalik roseae for my previous response because I read about it in Feb. issue of NG a few days ago and it was fresh in my mind, I could not hyperlink to any of the found sites because I have safe search activated (better safe then sorry) and someone flagged them as infected.

If some retards went to all that trouble to make sure people don't know about this because of their belief, what do you think is needed to add BS to a wiki entry? I would rather see what a palaeontologist has to say (who studies this stuff) then some religious nut that decides this interferes with his belief system.

WOW! I get it now! I've had my head in the sand for so long!

Please let me know if I've got this right:

1. Evolution has some gaps that need filling in.
2. Hence, Evolution is wrong!
3. Therefore, Creationism must be correct!

That's all the proof I need!

It's all so simple now! Thanks guys!

You didn't watch that clip from Post #9, did you?

BTW, I don't "believe" in Evolution. Never have.

What I do is I ACCEPT Evolution as the best explanation that we have as of today. There's no faith involved at all.

Anthony here's what the paleontologist said in the article from your link. The last line of the first paragraph "It's discovery sheds light on a pivotal point" and the first line of the second paragraph of the link you posted states the same thing that Wikipedia said only using different words "Tiktaalik looks like a cross between". If you read the entire article you run across terms like "consequently very interesting", "the answer is not entirely",and "infer". None of those terms convey certainty and those are all from the article from your link.

You have more faith than I do. I am congratulating you for that. The gaps that you consider minimal are monumental, but your faith requires that you overlook that.

Your faith says that it all started with one cell. Your faith does not indicate where that first cell came from. But your faith says it is so.

I see. So you DO take advantage of the medical benefits of science when you become ill.

But then you say that evolution is not science.

I'm confused by this.

Let's say you come down with a nasty bacterial infection.

The common bacteria that you've become infected with used to be effectively treated with anti-biotic "A". But now, it no longer responds to anti-biotic "A".

So now the doctor will try a new anti-biotic ("B"). Hopefully anti-biotic "B" will prove to be effective against your bacterial infection and you will be okay.

The bacteria no longer responds to anti-biotic "A" because the bacteria has .....
Oh, what's the word I'm looking for here? I've gone blank...

It's not going to work. Sorry.

I'm sorry, but this is not particularly coherent.

Does this have any validity?

[Link: icr.org]

not at all evolution as a concept is easy, but like I said in my previous point

a palaeontologist won't talk about absolutes because the fate of every individual is unknown. I posted the info because


and that fish is something in between that did exist at some point in time. A palaeontologist tries to find the different bones, tries to delineate the different species from a few fragments, and tries to reconstruct in thick and broad lines the evolutionary chains, but exactly what happened only God will ever know. Maybe all the Tiktaalik Roseae died out because they lived in a small area and some natural disaster happened. But obviously something close to them had existed and did eventually become tetrapods. Maybe those other Tiktaalik's split from the Roseae before this specimen was born, but they where luck to live in a stream miles away and so were safe.

A good palaeontologist will never talk in absolutes because there are none, but it is a far cry from guesses

So explain to me who created the matrix...

Larry and Andy Wachowski

Anthony - evolution is a guess a hypothesis that can not be proven at least at this time. It is not a truth but in school and from it's supports it is taught in most cases with certainty - the way things happened. Obvious to who "But obviously something close to them had existed and did eventually become tetrapods"? Since evolution is only a theory it should be taught as such but it isn't in the books my kids came home with and what was written by their teachers was evolution as far from it being a theory but as if it were provable and anyone that says differently is a idiot which is far from the truth.

I'm not entirely sure, but my understanding is that it evolved from an idea that a certain entity had . . . maybe.

......or maybe not!