Or perhaps it's because Feduccia's initial premises are faulty? You might ask what makes up a 'science' before jumping to the conclusion that the study of evolution is not science. You might also investigate quantum physics before assuming all 'physics' are simple, obvious and 'provable'. I assume you are considering 'classic' physics as 'Physics' in your comment, but classic physics has been shown to be lacking in explanatory power, specifically when looking at the atomic world. Once you get to the quantum level, any relationship physics has to the observable and testable becomes tenuous.
"Think about it: if a mathematical experts disagrees with math he isn't given the time of day. You are either right or wrong.
"Same with physics, biology and chemistry. Our technology operates as it does because all of these disciplines have methods in which the theories can be verified and tested.
What makes you believe the biologists practicing in the fields of evolution are any different than other biologists? What makes you believe that evolutionary studies are not submerged in math and physics? The indirect observations used in evolutionary studies are just as testable and verifiable as quantum physics, relativity, astronomy, cosmology and any other science that relies on it.
"Fossil study does not.
This is a strawman version of evolution. Evolution is based on many more studies than just 'fossils' (paleontology). It includes taxonomy, cladistics, geology, geophysics, geography, genomics, chemistry, physics, astronomy, computer science and probably a few I've forgotten about.
"Actually dating the fossils isn't or can't be done with any degree of accuracy. Think about it: if it could be done then there would be no debate about transitionals. None. They could prove that the fossils in question are X number of years old and Dr. Alan Feduccia would have to concede the point. But they can't."
Let's take a look at that statement. Radiometrics can date the rock fossils are found in, accurately to within a specific range of time. How many years 'out' can radiometrics be and still be within 1%? If we go with the oldest age of the Earth of 4,550,000,000 years the range of dates within 1% would be between 4,595,500,000 and 4,504,500,000 years. This is equivalent to being within 9.6 months of determining the age, scientifically/medically, of an 80 year old human simply by examining his body. That sounds pretty accurate to me.
Most of the 'doubt' about transitionals comes from the creationist groups who disregard dating all together. If dating was accurate 'to the day', they would still argue the point. Knowing the exact dates of fossils would not stop Feduccia from contesting the ideas he contests because it would not tell us which fossil is in direct line with any other, it would just tell us which is older. There is no restriction to more than one lineage of dinos having descendants who flew.
"Since they can't prove the age, they have to do the only thing next: call those who disagree nutcases. It's the old Clinton nuts and sluts strategy. Evolutionists who disagree with orthodoxy are called nuts. People who disagree with evolution are called sluts.
Your opinion does not make for a good argument, especially when 'arguments of distraction' are all you use.
It has been suggested to you that Caudipteryx 'devolved' from a flying dinosaur (if birds evolved from dinos, they can still be considered dinos) which you rejected. There really is no such thing as 'devolution' or 'de-evolution' since evolution has no direction and no goal. However there is no set of evolutionary rules that specify that a non-flying dino which has evolved into a flying dino cannot evolve into a non-flying dino once again. There are cases of birds arriving on predator free islands losing their ability to fly within a relatively short period of time.
It is also not necessary that a series of transitional fossils be in direct lineage with one another. As long as the general path of change is shown and verified by analysis of multiple shared diagnostic features it is evidence of the transition. This is much like your mother's cousin who is just as valid a representative of the evolution of 100 generations of your family as you are.
I'm not following you line of reasoning. If you propose a vector of accumulated effect, it seems to me you would also have to propose a vector of direct causation. If not, then how can you say that one transitions the other. It sounds counter intuitive to me.
But it would demonstrate, through contradition, what could not be ancestral.