Now I know you've read the actual quote by Gould as it's been posted on these threads numerous times. He did not say there wes a lack of transitionals. He said there was a dearth of transitionals. There is a universe of difference between the two concepts, at least for those of us with a modicum of intelligence.
More an issue of honesty than intelligence. Deliberate misquoting and misrepresenting of your opponents' statements is a sign of moral depravity rather than lack of intelligence.
... Not between higher orders but at the species level only, which he and Eldredge came to realize was to be expected.
Evolution as Fact and Theory, by Stephen Jay Gould.
Faced with these facts of evolution and the philosophical bankruptcy of their own position, creationists rely upon distortion and innuendo to buttress their rhetorical claim. If I sound sharp or bitter, indeed I am—for I have become a major target of these practices.For the lurkers, an introductory treatment, Speciation by Punctuated Equilibrium....
Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether through design or stupidity, I do not know—as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups.
You give yourself too much credit.
Retro said "What lack of transitionals?" Gould says dearth (scarcity). To quote you, "There is a universe of difference between the two concepts, at least for those of us with a modicum of intelligence."