Really? I asked you if you would accept fossil evidence for transitional species IF ONLY SUCH EVIDENCE EXISTED. Somehow, you managed to miss the point of my post.
You ran out and got an irrelevant datum. That is, you waved Schwartz saying there isn't any such evidence. That is to say, you have instantly, before even being confronted with any data, appealed to an "authority," a rapidly self-marginalizing voice in the wilderness--most authorities don't see a need for a "hopeful monster" theory--one with whom I obviously do not agree. We had a thread on Schwartz. Let me charitably speculate that he may be unacquainted with the evidence that he is wrong.
But what about you? How hard is my question? Would you accept fossil evidence for transitional forms unknown in Darwin's day if such were presented to you?
Because you're trying to play the issue: You're going to pick some form that appears to be morphologically between two other forms and declare it to be a transitional fossil. That quite misses the point.
My point is that the fossil record does not support smooth, constant change over time as Darwin's theory predicts. Rather, it supports species continuing essentially unchanged for millions of years (we'll assume your dating is correct for the sake of discussion) with abrupt "evolution" which takes place too quickly to be captured in the record. Thus, we have Punk Eek, the world's first "scientific" theory built to explain a lack of evidence.
Your tactic is good, but its logic quickly falls apart as soon as someone refuses to accept your definition of the transitional fossil problem.