First of all, it's really unscholarly of them to attack the fact that scientists are using the word "may" and such when they themselves are using it just as much as the evolutionists, and it's funny that half the article is concerned with this... it makes you think they're being defensive or something... Also, they've diminished the impact of the find by calling it a "lobe finned fish". It isn't, the ceolacanth is. The tiktaalik has evidence of actual limb development, like an elbow and a primitive wrist. And they want a creationist to examine it. I don't even see the point, they're just going to say it's "just another fish".