[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Even in the fossil record (and the fossil record we have is vast indeed), there are only a handful of transitional forms - and even these are controversial even amongst evolutionists. Given that evolutionism makes a fetish of macro-evolution, there should be a whole lot more transitional forms than there actually are, just from a logical standoint.

Now, before you flame me, I will flat out admit that I don't know one way or the other about macro-evolution. But at least I'm willing to admit that. Unlike the evos (and some creationists) who strain at a gnat and swallow a camel.

The fact is, even though there is some evidence on macro-evolution, the theory takes a leap of faith to accept. Heaven knows, there is more solid evidence for the historical authenticity of the Bible than for evolution and yet it takes a solid leap of faith to accept that too.

[orionblamblam]

> there are only a handful of transitional forms

Incorrect. *every* form is a transitional form. Modern humans are a transitional form. We just don't know yet whether we will transition to another species, several other species... or extinction.

[js1138]

there are only a handful of transitional forms

Every thing that ever lived is a transitional. And there are millions of fossils. Even some that are not obviously either birds or reptiles. Even some that are not obviously land animals or whales.