[atlaw]

As I said, that article presents a good starting place. It is, however, apparent that you read very little of it.

It is equally apparent that you either (1) have some sort of handicap that prevents you from investigating anything on your own or (2) are too bloody lazy to look. I can think of no other explanations for your strangely juvenile demand to "show me those fossils" and your petulant complaint that "I have not yet been shown them - just HEARD about them."

Now, I'm going to suggest something radical here. Instead of responding to this and future posts with some variation of your happy refrain that "if them there scientists ain't got everything, they ain't got nothing," pick a specific set of transitionals identified in the link provided, and frame some alternative explanations for their existence that takes into account their age, taxonomic hierarchy, and morphological similarities and dissimilarities.

[PatrickHenry]

... pick a specific set of transitionals identified in the link provided, and frame some alternative explanations for their existence that takes into account their age, taxonomic hierarchy, and morphological similarities and dissimilarities.

They're bones! Old bones!
Nothing but bones!
You have no evidence!