[NapkinUser]

If this is even half as big a discovery as this makes it appear, why are nothing other than small fringe sites carrying it?

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"If this is even half as big a discovery as this makes it appear, why are nothing other than small fringe sites carrying it?"

They are:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/04/0405_060405_fish.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4879672.stm
http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=scienceNews&storyID=2006-04-05T170749Z_01_L05556501_RTRIDST_0_SCIENCE-SCIENCE-FISH-DC.XML
There's this from nature.com, though without subscription you don't get the article:

News and Views
Nature.com (subscription), UK - 1 hour ago
... We raise these points because on pages 757 and 764 of this issue 1, 2 are reports of just such an intermediate: Tiktaalik roseae, a link between fishes and ...

The story is out there now.

[narby]

If this is even half as big a discovery as this makes it appear, why are nothing other than small fringe sites carrying it?

Because the fact that evolution occurred is "Dog Bites Man", not "Man Bites Dog". I.E. it's old news.

[PatrickHenry]

If this is even half as big a discovery as this makes it appear, why are nothing other than small fringe sites carrying it?

The two sources I linked are: (1) EurekAlert!, which is the online news service of The American Association for the Advancement of Science; and (2) Nature magazine, one of the most highly regarded, peer-reviewed science journals in existence. Not classy enough for you?

[ahayes]

The article only came out today in Nature. I know things are really fast on the web, but unfortunately most news sources seem to consider science rather boring.