It's represented as transitionals.
Putting up fossils that are known not to be ancestral to man, in hopes of showing a larger transitional list is intellectually dishonest.
Putting up fossils that are somewhat similar doesn't prove common descent. The same could be expected from common design.
I'll grant you that primate skeletons look a like. But that proves nothing. Show us the transitionals. Pull out the fossils from your slide that are known even by evolutionists not to be ancestral to man and lets see what you have left.
We know there's no DNA in 99.999 percent of fossils. We thus know we can never prove conclusively from fossil evidence alone that thing B is absolutely positively the perfectly direct descendant of thing A. No one has ever pretended to you any differently and this is explained to you anew on every thread.
The above doesn't mean it means nothing when you find a series of things morphing like perfectly designed movie frames from thing A to thing B and on through thing Z. Obviously, it's a clue to the overall direction of that branch of the tree of life. You have to be an idiot not to understand it, or a liar to claim you don't.
What is dishonest is to call for evidence, claiming it to be missing, when you're never going to accept any such thing and you've already thrown out a mountain of such in a pile behind you. You're lying about your intentions and what you're willing to see.
Then show up later remembering nothing.
To the lurkers, Taxonomy, Transitional Forms, and the Fossil Record. Says it all, and lots of nice examples. It has been posted to DannyTN times without number. Not one concept within informs his posts. Not one. Ever.
Creation Science is showing up tomorrow just as ignorant as you were ten years ago. Creation Science is an oxymoron.