My commentary follows the claims written by creationists (italics)
The Coelacanth fish was touted to be a transitional form with half-formed legs and primitive lungs, ready to transition onto land.
(False. Coelacanths are actually an entire order of fish that were related to the transitional forms. The coelacanth was not touted as THE "transitional form" or even A "transitional form". What the creationists were apparently confused about is that they are related to lungfishes, a still-living genus.)
This myth was exploded in December, 1938 when a live Coelacanth was caught in a fisherman's net off the eastern coast of South Africa. It is now known that the natives of the Comoro Islands had been catching and eating the fish for years. It did not have half-formed legs or primitive lungs.
The Coelacanth caught off the coast of South Africa was a species that lived in the protected environment of deep ocean waters. There was no need for it to have "half formed legs or primitive lungs".
It was simply a regular fish that people thought was extinct. Click the picture to see an enlargement. Evolutionist claimed the 350 million year-old Coelacanth evolved into animals with legs, feet and lungs. That was a lie.
You're the one who would be lying, Mr. Creationist. "Evolutionists" did not claim that coelacanths evolved legs or that all coelacanths (or similar fish) were all destined to evolve legs. That's not how it works. If this type of fish lived successfully in deep ocean waters, then there wouldn't have been a need to "evolve legs".
The creationist idea that a fish living deep in the ocean would be expected to "evolve legs" just because it was a coelacanth demonstrates how little the creationists actually understand about evolutionary theory.
We now see that the fish recently caught is exactly like the 350 million year-old fossil. It did not evolve at all.
False. This particular species is not an exact replica of its ancient relatives, but has evolved to fit its niche. It is no more an overturning of evolutionary theory than coral is. The discovery of this coelecanth was notable because it was assumed to be extinct -- a casualty of the same calamity that killed off the dinosaurs. But this last holdout apparently survived the calamity, possibly because of its deep water environment. *That* is the reason its discovery was newsworthy -- not because it was assumed to be a "missing link".
"The Archaeopteryx fossils with feathers have now been declared forgeries by scientists.
FALSE. Archaeopteryx is accepted among the scientific community as an actual species.
"Allegedly, thin layers of cement were spread on two fossils of a chicken-size dinosaur, called Compsognathus. Bird feathers were then imprinted into the wet cement" according to Dr. Walt Brown's book, In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood, page148. "
So a quote in a creationist book about "alleged" forging is a "declaration by scientists" that Archaeopteryx fossils are "forgeries"? One would assume that if this were the general consensus among "scientists", it would have been dismissed by now, and not displayed in the world's most prominent museums.
The scientist who suggested the possibility of forgery was looking at photographs taken at a resolution that blurred the clarity -- not the actual fossil. Moreover, the scientists were initially unfamiliar with the process of fossilization in that particular strata, but recanted his position when shown other fossils from the Holofernes formation.
Mr. Creationist also conveniently leaves out the fact that other Archaeopteryx fossils besides the famous first one have been found since then. All of this information can easily be found in the Wikipedia article.
"Evolutionists keep getting hit in the face with scientific truth. Therefore, they spend most of their time developing complex lies and molding them into complex theories. They modify fossil evidence in an attempt to support their false theories. Cheat, cheat, cheat. Lie, lie, lie."
Creationists seem to love to project their own issues. They wouldn't know "scientific truth" if they were hit in the face with it. Therefore, they spend most of their time developing simpleminded lies and molding them into complex logical fallacies. They dance, obfuscate, distract, cherry pick, selectively leave information out, quote mine, etc. in order to support their precious belief in the literalness of a fable invented by Bronze Age story tellers.
Next, Mr. Creationist goes on to describe the platypus:
The Platypus (Ornithorhynchus anatinus), with its duck bill and webbed feet, [...]
The Platypus of Australia has characteristics of many species but certainly is not the missing link to all of them. In fact, it is not a link to any of them.
No scientist has ever suggested the platypus is a "missing link" or potential missing link to future bird-like creatures. The logical fallacy here is the alleged assumption of shared characteristics with "many species". We perceive its to have a "duck bill" only in a very cartoon or caricatured sense. Real ducks' bills do not look like that and are not constructed the same way. The platypus' features are unique to the platypus, and it evolved along its own unique way.
Moreover, the underlying suggestion is that a creature with what we perceive to have "bird like" features (i.e a "bill" that sort of looks like a big duck bill), ought to be "evolving" into a bird-like creature but isn't, therefore represents a dilemma for the ToE. This represents a complete failure to understand the most basic concepts of evolution. Birds evolved as a successful group not because of a few characteristics like having a bill, but because of the wide-open variety of niches they could fill -- e.g. anything above ground. It was their lightweight skeletons, long limbs and feathers that enabled them to do this -- not because they had bills.
The other logical fallacy is that all mammals with so-called primitive characteristics are destined to evolve into mammals with what we perceive to be higher characteristics when this has more to do with the human definition of what we perceive as "superior" or "higher". Perhaps the platypus with its specialized "bill" fits its own niche quite well. A good example of such misconceptions is another monotreme, the echidna. One might assume that since it is a monotreme with reptilian characteristics such as laying eggs, all of its features are very primitive. But it also has a large, well-developed brain, suggesting that not all of its featured "stayed exactly the same" over time.
The Platypus has made a joke and a mockery of Charles Darwin's theory of evolution and his unproven theory of natural selection.
Actually, the existence of monotremes in Australia helps validate Darwin's theory. The reason such an anomalous creature has survived to modern day is due to the fact that its environment was not shared by competitors or predators. Otherwise, it probably would have become extinct, displaced by placental mammal competitors. Australia, Tasmania and New Zealand are noted for their unique fauna found nowhere else on earth, which also validates Darwin's theory.
Tiktaalik fish fossil.April 6. 2006 - Tiktaalik is the latest fossil gap evolutionary fraud.
Scientists fraudulently (only according to Creationists) claim a newly discovered fish is the second bridge fossil gap between sea and land creatures. The scientists have apparently forgotten that the first fossil gap, Archaeopteryx, shown above was also a fraud. (False).
Tiktaalik therefore becomes fossil gap fraud number 2. Click the picture to see an enlargement. [the photo does not show the rest of the skeleton]
"Called "Tiktaalik" by scientists, the fish lived in shallow, swampy waters. Most remarkably, the creature, which was less than 3 feet long, had the body of a fish but the jaws, ribs and limb-like fins seen in the earliest land mammals."
A Google search of this quote led to a USA Today article -- not exactly the most scientific of resources. The writer most likely meant, "...earliest land animals" (meaning amphibians).
The claim that the stubby little fossil fins are "limb-like" is a real hoot. The fish doesn't even have fins as large as expected for its size.
Here Mr. Creationist demonstrates how little he knows about comparative anatomy. The definition of a "limb", according to "one of the jointed appendages of an animal used for locomotion or grasping: arm; leg; wing; flipper" Tiktaalik has a shoulder blade and distal joint planes (analogous to wrist bones), something that ordinary finned fish do not have. These would indeed be "limb like", even if they were not that efficient for walking or running. We see amphibians today with stubby little legs - they spend most of their time in the water.
The scientists are claiming the fish walked around on the ground out of water and breathing air. This is pure make believe speculation.
False -- the skeleton shows adaptations for air breathing, such as spiracles (small air holes) in the skull. This is based on educated understanding of anatomy -- not "make believe speculation". And "the scientists" were not "claiming" that it "walked around on the ground" -- only that its limb and skeletal anatomy bore similarities to the later amphibians that ordinary fish do not possess. Not only did it have jointed limbs, but a mobile head - another feature found in tetrapods but not the majority of fish.
No evidence exists that the fish is anything more than just another species.
The evidence shows that unlike other fish, this species possessed jointed limblike structure with bones analogous to tetrapods, in addition to other basal characteristics.
The excitement about the Tiktaalik fossil is puzzling. Modern-day seals have fins and waddle around on the ground.
Seals are modern mammals, which were already established as tetrapods. They are not analogous to Tiktaalik's significance as a fish with an unusual tetrapod-like limb structure. And again Mr. Creationist demonstrates his lack of knowledge of comparative anatomy. "Modern day seals" have flippers, not fins. Flippers are modified foot structures - compare a seal's skeleton to a fish skeleton.
Modern-day catfish have fins and walk around on the ground. Catfish can live out of water for a long time with dying.
Not the point. Modern day catfish do not have shoulder blades and wrist bones, which is the reason why Tiktaalik is considered a transitional form. The "excitement about Tiktaalik" is due to its unusual anatomy that compares to a tetrapod skeleton. ...NOT because it is an aquatic animal that could possibly "waddle on the ground".
Tiktaalik does not provide any support for evolution.
Only to creationists who aren't educated enough to understand why. They just don't get it!