Hi folks. I ran across a paper by Kirk Fitzhugh that says, among other things, that finding fossils such as Tiktaalik doesn't constitute the fulfillment of an evolutionary prediction or evidence for evolution. I couldn't find anyone in the literature who mentions Fitzhugh or his paper so I thought I'd ask you guys what you thought of his conclusions. Fair warning: it is an excessively dull and tedious read and I myself fail to really grasp his argument.
Anyway, if you have access to the publication,the paper can be found here:
http://bf4dv7zn3u.search.serialssolutio ... 010-9088-1
If you don't have access and don't want to pay for it (you don't),it can be found here as word document:
http://www.csupomona.edu/~djmoriarty/we ... d%20ID.pdf
If anyone with a better grasp of logic than I have cares to wade through it and assess his argument, that would be cool. It seems counter-intuitive that finding what a theory predicts we should find doesn't constitute evidence for that theory, but he's not just a creationist nutjob (the other half of the paper trashes ID). If no one feels like subjecting themselves to this paper I won't be surprised, so no pressure.