@NobleMouse
I just noticed the casey luskin article there.
The article bases an argument around these tracks that came about 10 million years prior to tiktaalik (zechelmie tracks). In other words, how could tiktaalik be a transitional if the transition from fish to tetrapod occurred 10 million years prior to tiktaaliks existence?
To respond to this, imagine if I had a book that was 4.56 billion pages long (the number of years in the age of the earth, and the number of years identified in the faunal succession and in the geologic succession). To equate to the number of years in the geologic succession.
Then the predicted and discovered location of the "word" tiktaalik would simply be 10 million pages after the "word" zechelmie tracks.
I we were to cut the numbers down by dividing each age by 10 million (4.56 billion/10 million, 375 million/10 million and 385 million/10 million , we would have a book that is 456 pages long, and the tetrapod tracks and tiktaalik fossil would be less than a single page apart (on pages 37 and 38 respectively).
-------------------------------------------------------
Now, let me ask this, if the succession and transition between fish to tetrapod, was predicted to be between the late silurian and the late devonian (between pages 42 and 36), of what value is it to young earthers to say, no no, "the word" tiktaalik that was predicted and found on page 37, isnt a transitional because the first tetrapod tracks (zechelmie) were actually identified on page 38.
You would say that, the predicted transition occurred over some 60 pages (late silurian to late devonian), so why would a single page difference (38-37) within that range (42-36), somehow be a challenge to the faunal succession?
The fact that tiktaalik is found just 1 page away from the zechelmie tracks, in a 456 page long book, is a testament to the reality of the faunal succession. Tiktaalik could have been on page 300, 450, 200, 100, 50, 10, as could have the zechelmie tracks. They could have been found on any page, they could have been found anywhere on earth, at any depth. But no, tiktaalik was found on page 37, literally less than a single page away from the foot tracks being discussed by casey luskin (zechelmie tracks on page 38).
------------------------------------------------------------------
Imagine if i gave you a book that was 456 pages long, and i said that based on the faunal and geologic succession, the word "bird" would be found for the first time on page 14, and you discovered that it was actually on page 15. And you argued that because it was on page 14 and not 15, somehow my theory is in danger of being completely false.
I would laugh and I'd say, of all the pages of the book, of all the locations on earth, of all the 3 dimensional depths deep in the earth, i predicted their location within a single page. Why in the world, would you think that my science is wrong because you found out that it was page 14 and not 15?
Casey Luskin is making a senseless and deceptive argument. Where he is exacerbating a minor detail, making it sound as if it is some hugely detrimental find, when in reality the discovery of the zechelmie tracks is just further proof, or evidence, and a further testament to the reality of the faunal succession, simply because even the zechelmie tracks, are in the book right where we would anticipate they would be, in that 42-36 range. The fact that the tracks are 1 page from tiktaalik simply brings more precision to our already accurate predictions and understanding.