Anthony here's what the paleontologist said in the article from your link. The last line of the first paragraph "It's discovery sheds light on a pivotal point" and the first line of the second paragraph of the link you posted states the same thing that Wikipedia said only using different words "Tiktaalik looks like a cross between". If you read the entire article you run across terms like "consequently very interesting", "the answer is not entirely",and "infer". None of those terms convey certainty and those are all from the article from your link.
not at all evolution as a concept is easy, but like I said in my previous point
you do also know that no one can know if this particular individual had kids or not
a palaeontologist won't talk about absolutes because the fate of every individual is unknown. I posted the info because
It's not sufficient to say that a fish became a four legged creature without something in-between
and that fish is something in between that did exist at some point in time. A palaeontologist tries to find the different bones, tries to delineate the different species from a few fragments, and tries to reconstruct in thick and broad lines the evolutionary chains, but exactly what happened only God will ever know. Maybe all the Tiktaalik Roseae died out because they lived in a small area and some natural disaster happened. But obviously something close to them had existed and did eventually become tetrapods. Maybe those other Tiktaalik's split from the Roseae before this specimen was born, but they where luck to live in a stream miles away and so were safe.
A good palaeontologist will never talk in absolutes because there are none, but it is a far cry from guesses
