Medical doctor Elizabeth Mitchell writes, in an essay on the 'Answers in Genesis' site in a caption of a Tiktaalik artistic rendition (note the bolding and/or italics I added for emphasis in both quotes):
In fact, the evolutionary imagination accords this fish’s hind-parts so much power, they believe it was ready for “pelvic-propelled locomotion”1 across the terrestrial world and up the evolutionary tree.
The 1 links to this article:
N. Shubin et al., “Pelvic girdle and fin of Tiktaalik roseae,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (13 January 2014)
wherein one finds this passage - the only passage in which one finds the word "propelled":
Tiktaalik reveals that features contributing to the trend toward pelvic-propelled locomotion in the tetrapodomorph stem began emerging in finned taxa before being enhanced in more derived digited forms. Indeed, this trend has deep roots or parallel trajectories: diverse lungfish, both fossil
and extant, have pectoral and pelvic girdles that are subequal in size (17).
Why do professional creationists lie like this? Is it because they have brainwashed their target audiences into bowing to their perceived authority so it doesn't matter?
Or are most of them just incompetent and don't know any better?
This is not, sadly, a rarity. YEC Dr.David Menton had written commentary on the pelvic bones of Tiktaalik, declaring them insufficient for land-based locomotion. Problem - at the time he wrote the article, the pelvic bones had not yet been discovered.
YEC Dr. Jeff Tomkins wrote an essay declaring that humans and chimps are really only about 70% similar, and thus could not have a shared ancestry. It was soon discovered that he had done 2 things - that he had used a version of BLASTn with known problems, and that he had constrained the program to return only sequence matches of prescribed lengths that were 100% matches - so if the program found a sequence in human that matched chimp in 9 out of 10 bases, it would come back as 0% identical, virtually guaranteeing that what he found would have a lower % identity than other analyses. When confronted with these problems, Tomkins doubled down and called his critics names (this played out on Reddit, not sure I want to link to it).
There are many other examples - but one has to wonder why, if they are so sure that they are correct, why do they engage in these acts of dishonesty?
And if they are acts of incompetence, why should their followers trust them?
