Recently the fossil of a creature, named Tiktaalik (pronounced tick-TAH-lick), which seems to blur the line between fish-like creatures and four-legged animals, was discovered on Ellesmere Island, in Arctic Canada. It's been touted as evolution's "missing link," a life form in transition from one species to another.

Does scientists' interpretation represent a case of following preconceived notions, while neglecting other more logical explanations that are actually supported by independent empirical evidence?

Caterpillars are crawling creatures that go through a stage called pupa, in which they undergo a complete metamorphosis and emerge as flying creatures. Tadpoles are aquatic, gill-breathing, legless creatures that develop lungs, legs, and other organs to roam on dry land. Some salamanders undergo a metamorphosis which also takes them from an aquatic environment to an air-breathing one.

Although these creatures undergo such drastic changes in only one generation, not one has, in the millions of known cases, ever evolved into anything beyond their usual, known final stage. There is obviously no random evolution going on here. A limited number of creatures apparently have the genetic blueprint for transforming into very specific new forms.

There are humans with both male and female physical characteristics. Are males evolving into females, or vise versa? Of course not. These are simply anomalies, and don't seem to drastically effect the course of the species.

Then, of course, there are organisms, humans included, which are occasionally born diseased or deformed. They either die out or pass on their aberrations to offspring. Again, in the millions of known cases, they haven't been known to drastically change the course of a species.

The question now is, given the realities of biological aberrations and limited metamorphosis, have scientist considered these phenomena as possible explanations for Tiktaalik?

Have scientists considered perhaps even that there could have been a species that had some of the characteristics of both aquatic and dry-land creatures, and didn't necessarily evolve from or to any other creature?

The discovery of Tiktaalik has been widely reported on network television, in newspapers, in magazines, and on the internet, all claiming it to be proof of evolution. I have thus far not seen a single account of an evolutionist even listing other possibilities, let alone describe by what rationale or evidence explanations other than evolution were eliminated.

We have ample independent, modern-day evidence of several explanations for Tiktaalik. Yet, scientists decided on the one explanation for which there is no independent proof, evolution, and then have the temerity to claim that this PROVES evolution.

Throwing out an explanation and saying, go ahead disprove it, is easy. Coming up with several explanations and disproving them yourself one by one until you're left with the one you claim to believe, that's another story. What scientists have done is employed "used car salesmanship" to sell us "science;" they've told us "it's a great car," but neglected to tell us about the holes, cracks and leaks. Tiktaalik is proof of only one thing: the public can be subjected to some really bad science.

Perhaps these scientists should be working for General Motors -- a little slick salesmanship could do wonders for the auto industry.