I’m sorry but I’m a very stubborn and, I’m sure infuriating person.
First, every “child” is merely the combination of its parents DNA. There is no definable monster child. For instance, there was no monster zebra that sprang complete from two horses. Over time the isolated zebra/horses accumulated differences until they became a separate species. There were a long series of somewhat different children.
Second, an low oxygen environment is one of many ways fossils can be preserved but it is perhaps the best. Also in China, the apparent collapse of sand dunes has preserved some remarkable fossils, in part through the rapid formation of the sandstone strata. One reason the lake bottom fossil depositions are so handy is that the silt layers are sandwiched between occasional volcanic ash layers which make for good radiometric bookend dating.
The search for what the creationist web sites call “transitional” fossils is doomed to failure precisely because the web sites have constructed a straw man which is absurd by their intention. To paleontologist sand geologists, a transitional fossil is one which has some characteristics of one species and some characteristics of another. Going back a long ways, fossils have been found of fish with lungs and gills with leg like fins. Slightly later fossils of amphibians have a lot of structural similarities to these lung fish but their legs are clearly legs and their lungs are apparently the same as current amphibians. The change from fish to amphibian took place incrementally over a long period of time with each creature in the chain being a successful creature and the product of its parents.
And the zebra horse explanation has nothing to do with what I said. There HAS to be an offspring, two actually, at some point with a discernible chromosome difference from its progenitors. There can be no way around this fact, which is the reason that the saltation theory came up.
As for radiometric dating, I have held in my hands doctoral thesis's which show the total lack of integrity in that style of dating. Dates which do not match the mentally predetermined dates are discarded, not even reported in the thesis, and discordant material is removed from the sample till they get the dates they want. Total rubbish and if a financial company operated with those rules they would all be in jail.
Anything can be construed as a transitional when you set the basis for what a species is or is not. Researchers do it by claiming new species when there is a small physiological difference in two supposedly related fossils. But unless there is someway to get DNA from these fossils, there is no proof that anything was related.
If you are talking about Tiktaalik, then that is only conjecture with no proof for any of the suggestions. This is reminiscent of the Coelacanth conjectures which were all proven wrong when a living one was found. And there are creatures alive today that have both working gills & lungs.
But the ultimate point is still that there had to be a change in the chromosomal makeup at some point into another real species, which has never been shown or proven. Even the possibility is not explained by any evolutionist, except for Dr. Goldschmidt.