Okay, thanks for clarifying. But I have to say, I am a little confused as to how your depiction of the work lines up with what you cited in that post. Specifically....
You stated: "A stick insect fossil in a layer with dinosaur fossils dating before 66 million years will automatically indicate the fossil must be older than 66 million years - which was done."
I assume you're talking about
THIS ARTICLE, which describes a specimen from 126 million years ago. To be more specific, the specimens are around 126 million years old.
Then you stated: "If other studies say that is wrong, and the stick insect fossil is younger - many millions of years after 66 million years ago, then how did it get buried in a layer with dinosaur fossils?"
This is where I'm confused. First, I assume you're now referring to
THIS ARTICLE and where it says "
The age estimation of the phylogenetic tree suggests that most of the old lineages emerged after the dinosaurs became extinct 66 million years ago". If I have that right, then I suggest you read that carefully and look over the
ACTUAL PAPER. When they say "the old lineages emerged after the dinosaurs became extinct", they're talking about the "Old World" lineages, e.g., those in Madagascar.
So to answer your question, there is no conflict. The specimen from the fossil record is indeed 126 million years old, and most of the Old World lineages emerged later (after the dinos became extinct).
It's important to keep in mind that
"stick insect" refers to an entire taxonomic order, which contains multiple families. That's why it's possible for one lineage to have existed 126 million years ago, and other lineages emerge some 60 million years later.
You asked: "If the insect fossil is much younger, then why are the other fossils in that strata older, and not considered younger?"
Because they're not the same species, genus, or even family.
I hope that helps.
Que? Seriously?
