Really. That all ya got??":
Tiktaalik roseae, better known as the "fishapod," is a 375 million year old fossil fish which was discovered in the Canadian Arctic in 2004. Its discovery sheds light on a pivotal point in the history of life on Earth: when the very first fish ventured out onto land.
It "sheds" light on "pivotal point," claimed to be the "very first fish" to try out its new legs? Nice try:
http://creationwiki.org/Tiktaalik
It's yet another extinct creature that's arbitrarily aged at "375 million years old" which was created EXACTLY that way unknown thousands of years ago. You're better off making your desperate case of evolution by citing the current Platypus. It obviously evolved from a duck (or is it the other way around?)
Standard evolutionary theory does not propose an organism giving birth to something of a different species. You are wrestling with a cartoon version of evolution.
http://creationwiki.org/Tiktaalik
Adding words like "assumed," "arbitrarily," "supposed," and so on does not make an argument. What exactly is your criticism of the process? They had fossils found in rocks of one age that showed fish with paired fins. They had fossils from rocks of later age that showed tracks of four-limbed animals. Somewhere in between, they hypothesized, must be a fish with more limblike paired fins. And that's what they found, where they expected to find it. (Note that they never said it wasn't a fish, despite creationwiki's implication that that's a big gotcha.) Do you have a specific problem with any of that, or does it all just get a big "Nuh-uh!" because it challenges your beliefs?