No, it was probably the same idiots who wrote this:
Huge predators would have lurked in Tiktaalik's rivers and lakes, study co-leader Shubin says—perhaps one reason why Tiktaalik appears to have been headed for land.
"Land had no predators, and it also had food in the form of invertebrates," Shubin said. "Put this all together and the shallows and mudflats might have been a good place to make a living."
Supposedly learned individuals put out this drivel and then other supposedly learned individuals soak it up like sponges...
Do you have any arguments of substance, or is the whole of your objection an appeal to ridicule, without any actual attempt to dispute the claims?
It's not drivel, it's based on the actual evidence, unlike your desperate attempts at empty ridicule as a substitute for actual analysis.
and then other supposedly learned individuals soak it up like sponges...
Because it best fits the totality of the evidence and makes predictions which are subsequently validated. That's that "science" thing you must have heard about.
And that leaves dumbass clueless twits nothing to do but rant against it on FR?
Here's a free clue. They are learned. They stayed in school, and read books and stuff. They learned biology from books and biologists, not preachers. They know stuff you don't. All you have is an opinion, and you know what opinions are like.
Amen!
If it is not some evolution nonsense, it is nonsense like the De Vinci Code.
Anything but the truth. (Rom.1:22)
I find it interesting that the natives gave the name of the fossil the name of a fish.