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.
Because you know I've got you nailed. What Darwin said would show up has shown up in abundance and you know it.
You're going to pick some form that appears to be morphologically between two other forms and declare it to be a transitional fossil.
I've got bags of them by now, as you no doubt have anticipated.
That quite misses the point.
No, it's exactly my point. You're claiming something reasonably to be expected in the fossil record isn't there, but it is. We have basically the fossil record our models of geology and evolution tell us to expect. Finding a dingbat like Schwartz (or a surgically mangled George Gaylord Simpson quote from 1944, or any other of a hundred creationist quote mines) does not help with this.
My point is that the fossil record does not support smooth, constant change over time as Darwin's theory predicts.
Then your point is wrong. Darwin on the Imperfection of the Geologic Record. Any quote you can mine from there implying a smooth and continuous record of change will be one of his well-known rhetorical questions which he goes on to rebut fully. But you won't try it because you're better than that, right?
Now, here's my main point. It's wrong to constantly tell people that something reasonably to be expected is missing if [as most creationists have done] it turns out that you have defined away that thing to where nothing, nothing, nothing can be it. Or [in your particular case] you have misstated the requirement for the thing to such a level that once again it is "missing" even though the expected amount of it has been found.