The so-called feather impressions have been interpreted as being nothing more than collagen fiber impressions and therefore the fossils with which they are associated with are not considered to be transitional. Apparently not every paleontologist who was supposed to have done a life-time of research can tell the difference between a dinosaur and a bird.
As for this Tiktaalik, how can it be considered a transitional form between aquatic and terrestrial life forms when fossilized tracks belonging to fully terrestrial creatures have been given assigned dates millions of years older
BBC News - Fossil tracks record 'oldest land-walkers'
Fossil footprints give land vertebrates a much longer history -- ScienceDaily
than that of Tiktaalik which is regarded by evolutionists to be the earliest known transitional form between fish and amphibians?
Tetrapod trackways from the early Middle Devonian period of Poland | Nature
If these tracks are older than the so-called oldest aquatic/terrestrial transitional forms discovered, then how is that not in defiance of the so-called phylogenetic tree? How does a discovery like that not discredit the so-called geologic column so often found in our science textbooks?
The one response that I've heard some young earth creationists is regarding the zachelmie trackways of the early Devonian.
Some young earthers say, well, if tetrapods lived before Tiktaalik, which is a fish to tetrapod transition, it must therefore be true that the entire fossil succession is disorganized and completely made-up.
That's basically what the response is. But this response fails for the following reasons:
Earth history and the geologic succession spans 4.5+ billion years. Or 4,500 million years. Of the geologic record, the fossil record spans 3,500 million years, and macro species of animals span roughly 600 million years.
The zachelmie trackways are dated to roughly 390 million years old.
Non-marine palaeoenvironment associated to the earliest tetrapod tracks | Scientific Reports.
They are contested and others have suggested that they are fish feeding traces. Given that there is no associated bone material, it is hard to know for sure.
https://www.researchgate.net/public...itical_Review_of_Devonian_Tetrapod_Footprints
While the fish to tetrapod transition is believed to have spanned from dates of roughly 385-359.
A Devonian tetrapod-like fish and the evolution of the tetrapod body plan | Nature
With Tiktaalik specimen found in the fram formation, dating between 383-359, on the lower end of the frasnian, estimated around 385-375 million years old.
So with all of the above said, if the rock record were a 4,500 page book, with macro sized animals spanning the last 600 pages, what the YEC argument amounts to, is that, in their opinion, because contested tracks of a tetrapod appear on page 395 (give or take 5 pages) and because Tiktaalik (a tetrapodomorph) is observed between pages 385-375, give or take 5 pages, that somehow, all 600 pages of post Cambrian animals or even all 3,500 pages of the fossil record at large, somehow have no logical sequence because the two pages are in reverse order.
If the geologic record were a book: sure, they could find a t rex (page 70 or 70 million years ago) in the ordovician chapter (page 400 or 400 mya), or they could find any species of bird (pages 150-0) anywhere in the paleozoic (pages 550-250) and it would easily disprove evolution. But instead, they make an effort to say that a disputed fossil (that may just be fish traces, with no bone material) of page 390 (give or take 5 pages of potential dating error) ought to be on page 385 (give or take 5 pages), and that because it's not, the entire animal and fossil succession is meaningless.
As if someone had a 3500 page book of the fossil record and because page 390 and 385 were hypothesized to be out of order (yet without clearly being the case), that somehow the entire book loses its order?
In music terms, it would be like arguing that because b and b flat sound like they may be reversed, that somehow an entire chord has no meaningful order of sound. But in reality paleontologists are simply fine tuning our strings. And such an an argument ignores 99% of the rest of the fossil succession.
As if YECs could not fathom the possibility that perhaps these tetrapods (Tiktaalik and some tetrapodomorps of the early to mid Devonian) lived side by side or that perhaps even genus such as Tiktaalik-like tetrapodomorps might have made such trackways as the zachelmie trackways (assuming they aren't feeding traces of fish). As if evolution hadn't already established that fish had been around since the cambrian and reptiles appeared in the carboniferous, and so it would still be logical to find any tetrapod in the Devonian. YECs additionally don't understand that transitional fossils are not meant to be understood as direct ancestors, but rather related family members that share features of ancestors of a particular time (just as my uncle shares features with my father and both lived in a similar generation of time, and both teach me about my family tree, even though my uncle may not be my direct ancestor). My uncle would still be a "transitional" that depicts physical features of my family tree, even if my uncle isn't my direct ancestor and even if my uncle didn't live at exactly the same time as my father. Tiktaalik does the same even if it isn't a direct ancestor and thus is classified as a transitional fossil.
The YEC response to the summation of phylogenetic trees is really like sticking a bear with a twig. They may think they're doing something, but anyone whos familiar with the vast collection of information that makes these phylogenetic trees up, knows that these arguments are trivial at best. Nothing but a sleight of hand by YECs to make it appear as if they actually have some ground to stand on.
All the while, young earth Creationists still offer no meaningful explanation for how the localities of these fossils are predicted via the theory of evolution. Nor do YECs offer an explanation for why these phylogenetic trees align across independent fields of study.
