No.....they thought Darwin did believe in his theory. And whose own prediction didn't pan out. ergo his theory was falsefied. QED.
Stuff which is out there that shouldn't be there if there are no transitionals.
That should, one would think, count as a successful prediction. That is, if Darwin was a charlatan, he was the most incredibly lucky charlatan who ever was or could ever be. 150 years of mind-numbing luck disguising how wrong he was.
Now let me guess the gimmick. The trick is there's no proof of the evidence, and if there were there would be no proof of the proof of the evidence, etc.
Here's what's unreasonable. Some jackass says there simply are no transitionals. Science is looking for them, hasn't found a one, and is wondering where they could be. It's making up excuses for why there aren't any.
If anyone points out that there are plenty of transitionals, that science thinks it has about the fossil record its models of geology and evolution tell it to expect, things like that, we go to the fallback trench. The fallback trench is that there's no proof that any fossil is a transitional because the jackass doesn't accept radiometric dating, or evidence from morphology, or the ability of paleontologists to refrain from Piltdown fakery.
But that's quite a change of story if you think about it. In one version, there could be a transitional and such are to be expected but science just can't find any. Furthermore, science knows this. Furthermore, we are invited to believe that Mr. Jackass would accept a transitional if only science would find one.
The backup version is that all the fossil evidence is invalid, misinterpreted, Piltdown-faked, blah blah blah. But now nothing can ever be a transitional. And now science is deluded in thinking it HAS evidence. The jackass just happens to know better.
The only thing the exchange proves it that the jackass can't tell a single straight story.