tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6802109362344250457.post4299723627111490242..comments2008-07-15T04:28:07.852-05:00AIGBustedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03232781356086767207noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6802109362344250457.post-62762490413312837962008-07-15T04:28:00.000-05:002008-07-15T04:28:00.000-05:00Tiktaalik is a modern-day Archaeopterix. The creationist attacked the latter when it was first discovered, until a dozen or so more were found, as well as fossils that linked it with modern birds.<BR/><BR/>Now they pretty much ignore it. When asked, they say "Oh it's just a modern bird" and forget about the long reptilian tail, claws, teeth, and reptilian bone structure. I remember a book called <I>Life--How Did It Get Here?</I> published by Jehovah's Witnesses. They have an illustration of Archaeopterix that is deliberately drawn to make it look more bird-like than it actually was.<BR/><BR/>I imagine Tiktaalik is going to be in the same boat in a number of years. Some will dismiss it as a mutant (until more are found), but most will claim it's fully fish or fully amphibian. It's funny but some creationist groups believe Archaeopterix is fully reptile, while others believe it's fully bird. I'll bet the same thing will happen with Tiktaalik. The Discovery Institute will say "It's a fish!" while the Institute for Creation Research will say "It's an amphibian!"Brianhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17846531917173170897noreply@blogger.com