Evolution: An Objective Look

54. Tiktaalik roseae-the Grand Daddy of All Land Animals

 The URL for my book is www.Evo-illusion.com.

The above video is about my book Evo-illusion, now available at Amazon. The page begins below.

            Tiktaalik roseae: In 2006 a team of diggers under the support of the Chicago Museum of Natural History led by Neil Shubin, museum curator, found a fossil that is still being celebrated as a great and historic transitional species. Interestingly, Shubin heads the Field Museum where I first started my critical thinking about Darwin. The fossil was presented in the documentary as evidence that fish grew legs and crawled out of the oceans and waterways. This fossil was called a fishapod. It was given the name Tiktaalik roseae. Tiktaalik roseae is the perfect example of hyper-wishful evolution evidence. Above left is a monkfish that is almost a dead ringer for the above right Tiktaalik roseae. Supposedly the “monkfish” fossil proves without a doubt that fish crawled out of the ocean to evolve into amphibians, all dinosaurs, all mammals, all birds… all living animals on Earth. What a massive conclusion from this fossil that isn’t much more than a large dirt clod and very similar to a monkfish. Why wasn’t it simply regarded to be an early monkfish? The mere existence of this fish fossil became evidence that it is the precursor to all land animals. Obviously, there is no possible way to prove this earth-shaking story. 

The next step in advancing evolution’s tale about Tiktaalik is that artists take over and turn the dirt clod fossil into a quadruped that was the granddaddy of all land animals that ever lived on Earth. Notice how, in the painting above, Tiktaalik is drawn with much longer forelegs than the actual fossil’s stubby legs in the fossil, above right, and is in a “wishful thinking” standing position. Also note how the hind end of Tiktaalik is also pictured with two leg-fins, even though no hind end was found in 2006. Of course, this artwork will be placed in textbooks and museums to make Tiktaalik more believable as a historic transitional species. In reality,  only the front half of Tiktaalik was found, so they have absolutely no idea what the hind end looked like, an important fact that was not even mentioned in this documentary; an amazing omission. How do they know it’s configured like a quadruped? Another giant guess that promotes evolution! They found half of a fossil and turned it into one of the “greatest evolutionary finds of all time”. Does that stumpy “fin-leg” on the fossil look like it is on it’s way to being the foreleg of a horse? Is there any possible way that it can be proved this unbelievable morphing happened? Can it be prognosticated what might have happened to this fish in the next 375 million years? It would take an incredible amount of imagination to think so. If you found this fossil, would you immediately think you found the greatest transitional species of all time? Could anyone on Earth actually conclude without a doubt that Tiktaalik evolved into multiple amphibians and multiple four-legged walkers? Ninety-eight percent of all species that have ever existed became extinct. What are the chances Tiktallik became extinct or was just an early monkfish, versus the chances that Tiktaalik evolved into all land animals?  When he returned from the dig, Neil Shubin became a scientific national hero. As a result of the find, he wrote his book Your Inner Fish, which is a hot seller. Of course, he is now the world’s leading expert on the evolution from fish to all land animals.  Shubin was and still is being touted and interviewed on many TV talk shows. This find is a real WOW for evolution. Finally, the missing fossil that evolutionists have been waiting for and predicting has been found. And there it is! Just as predicted, at the 375 MYA level of strata!

Shubin and the group of diggers certainly should be complimented for finding a new species and going to that frozen area of Northern Canada to do the digging. But that’s it. I just re-watched the Dover Nova section on this subject. Shubin had the “fin-leg” bones painted on a chart, showing how each bone corresponds with human arms and tetrapod foreleg bones. Shubin went over it so quickly without clearly showing the fin-leg, as if he didn’t want the bones to be carefully scrutinized. I froze that scene. Those bones don’t at all correspond to human arms or tetrapod legs. You would have to be on drugs to think they do.

 .   Tiktaalik has eight tiny digit bones (Fig. 9-8) in its “forelegs” that are supposed to correspond to tetrapod/human digits. All tetrapods five digits or less. Did Tiktaalik evolve eight digit bones then dis-evolve the excess three digits?
The back half of the Tiktaalik fossil is missing, so they have no idea if it has two, three or zero “fin-limbs” in its hind area. Pictured below is a mudskipper. These are amphibious fish with two fin-forelegs and no hind fin-legs at all. We don’t know if Tiktaalik looked like this. No one has any idea what Tiktaalik’s back half looked like, so it is astounding that evolution scientists could immediately celebrate it as much as they have as a huge quadruped transitional find! 
Tiktaalik’s ribs are fish-like, good for swimmers, and not linked in the middle by a sternum, which would mean it couldn’t support itself on its fin-legs. No quadrupeds have ribs like Tiktaalik. Considering the ribs, and anatomy of the forelegs, the missing rear legs, the fact that Tiktaalik couldn’t support itself on land. (this is according to evo-scientists also), how scientific is it to credit Tiktaalik with being the common ancestor to most if not all land animals? 

     Fig. 9-6 is a photo from the first page of Shubin’s website. (https://tiktaalik.uchicago.edu/meetTik.html). It has all of the details of the dig. Notice that over eleven Tiktaalik fossils were found. You can be sure that this photo is by far the best sample. So, out of ten fossils, none apparently have a hind end; which is pretty astounding. Maybe this was an area of Canada where hind ends just didn’t fossilize. (tic) Notice how the hind end of the fossil isn’t included in the Web photo, just as the hind end isn’t included on the cover of his book.

    The fossil body of Tiktaalik shows no clear skeletal bones. It looks more like a dirt clod than a fossil, whilst the pelvis bone (A) is clearly a single very smooth bone. Why would the front half of Tiktaalik fossilize in one manner, and the hind end in an entirely different manner? Does this make sense? There is only one possible explanation. It is so obvious; I won’t even say what it is. If any of Shubin’s eleven Tiktaalik fossils had a hind end, he wouldn’t spend so much effort hiding the fact that there was no hind end on any of them. The first page of his website was put together before the pelvis bone was located. I think he forgot to unhide the hind end of his fossil.

    Why did Shubin cut off the end of the photo? Why not put the entire picture on his lead page? The other very obvious problem for Shubin is the fact that the bone fragment doesn’t fit the front half of the fossil whatsoever. Fig. 9-7 is a drawing from a paper written by Shubin showing the position of the pelvis. Notice how it isn’t connected to the skeleton at all. There is a large gap between the two. So how can Shubin credit the pelvis bone as being part of the Tiktaalik fossil? Further, there are no known animals that have a fish fin for a front leg, and a ball and socket joint attaching the hind leg. It’s pretty obvious the pelvis and ball and socket joint don’t belong to Tiktaalik.