Let's see what stupidity we have here ...
What the heck is a tiktaalik
It's a fossil tetrapod. Which you would know if you had bothered to pay attention in science class. Homeschooled were you perchance?
fancy arbitrary names
They're NOT arbitrary. The whole point of Linnaean taxonomy originally was to bestow names upon living organisms (and later, when the taxonomy was extended to them, fossil organisms) that were in some sense descriptive of the organism and its features, as well as providing some indication of the relationship of the named organism to other similar organisms. However, once the known species count began climbing toward the millions (we have over 350,000 named species of Coleoptera alone) even the rich vocabularies of Latin and Classical Greek began to fall short in this regard. So other conventions were adopted. Which were placed upon a systematic footing by the International Committee on Zoological Nomenclature, which exists to maintain those standards. But then if you had paid attention in science class, you would understand the basics of Linnaean taxonomy, the principles upon which the discipline was founded, and the rationale behind the naming of organisms.
impress no-one
Arbitrtary declarations of ignorance such as yours certainly impress no one.
indeed the equally absurdly named archaeopterix (Greek for old wing)
Try spelling it correctly. The Genus in question is Archaeopteryx. Plus it isn't absurdly named when you consider it was the first transitional bird fossil found, continues to be among the oldest found (dated to approximately 147 million years before present) and was named in accordance with earlier versions of those zoological nomenclature standards I described above.
impresses no one
Your rampant display of ignorance certainly impresses no one.
the use of arbitrary names
See above. And try learning some real science instead of whatever intellectual excrement is being force fed to you at your local mega-church.
to make a fossil seem somehow real
Excuse me, it's a physical artefact dug out of rock. I'd say that makes it real enough for those of us who are in touch with observational reality instead of being brain-addled by evidence-free assertion-laden doctrines.
and mildly scientific
Excuse me. Subject matter is either scientific or it isn't. There's no "mildly" or other degrees applicable.
Subject is based upon observational reality and accompanied by rigorous deduction: scientific
Subject is based upon unsupported assertions presented as axioms in old books written by Bronze Age goat herders: not scientific.
Simple, see?
is naive in the extreme.
Your naivety is certainly showing. And extreme.
Lets just call this fossil an "old wing".
Well, I'd certainly consider any entity reliably dated as being 147 million years old to be "old". Especially if it's one of the earliest, if not the earliest, example of its particular lineage.
In any case what we have is a single solitary example of a possible bird ancestor.
No "possible" about it. It IS an ancestor of modern birds. Try looking up "comparative anatomy" sometime.
The question is whether it constitutes absolute proof of dinosaur to bird evolution
Physical science doesn't deal in "absolute proof", that's reserved for mathematics and formal logic. What it does deal in is evidence from observational reality that confirms or refutes a hypothesis. A distinction lost on all too many of your ilk. Put together the age and the comparative anatomical features, and the consensus view among those who paid attention in science classes (including those scientists who studied it intensively) is that it IS an ancestor of modern birds. No other explanation fits the observed facts.
or whether it is simply an odd variant
So how come no living specimens have ever been found? Now THAT would be a problem for evolutionary biology.
it requires tremendous imagination to suggest that this old wing could have produced the penguin, the hummingbird and the ostrich through viable intermediate stages.
Your personal incredulity and wilful ignorance are worthless in this regard. On the other hand, the mountains of consilient evidence from multiple scientific disciplines assembled over 150 years and subject to intensive critical analysis is worth a lot. Again, something you would know if you had ever paid attention in a science class. Or, for that matter, ever attended one, which seems increasingly unlikely given your infantile eructations above.
Give me a break
Someone else has beaten me to this one, but I'll simply respond by asking some kind person to pass me the baseball bat ...
