TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
The theory is there. Discovery of Tiktaalik doesn't describe a go-between evolving specimen of something between fish and land crawlers. That part is a theory.
Again ignoring the actual facts of the matter.
Once more:
- scientists note that hundreds of millions of years ago, animals only lived in the sea.
- scientists note that later on, animals also lived on land
- scientists hypothesize that at some point, sea animals must have evolved into land animals.
- scientists narrow down the period in which that must have taken place
- scientists then look on a geological map to see where they can find rocks of that age
- upon pinpointing such rock, they predict that they should be able to find A TRANSITIONAL SPECIES burried in that rock that has traits of its fish ancestors AND traits of later land crawlers, and they list specific traits that they expect to find.
- finally, scientists go to that specific place, dig down and lo and behold: they dig up Tiktaalik. A fossil with the exact traits they expected to find, in the location they expected to find it.
How is this possible, if evolution is false?
Were they just lucky?
Is it just a coincidence that they just happen to stumble upon a fossil of the right age, with the right traits in the right location? Do you think it's really reasonable to assume this kind of luck?
Do you have ANY idea of the amount of fields / theories involved in this prediction?
It's not just evolution. It's also geology, natural history, dating mechanisms, etc etc.
So either this is exactly what it looks like: solid confirming evidence for these theories, OR these people are so lucky that they might just as well have won the lottery 100 times in a row.