You link starts off with an apologetic for ‘types of transitions’ which are all based on a priori assumptions and no cold hard evidence- it then proceeds to list species KINDS that although they have a few similarities, are vastly different, and the claims are made that they are trhe same KINDS without any proof.
When one uses assumptions without genetic proofs, one can make any claim they like and call it science I guess.
For the truth on TalkOrigin’s article titled Transitional Vertebrate fossils and how they use major unsupported assumptions and call it science- head on over to http://www.trueorigin.org/isakrbtl.asp where you’ll find much science to refute the so called transitions used in TalkOrigins article.
“Advocates of evolutionary theory practice evolutionism when they routinely invoke (and dogmatically defend) naturalistic and humanistic philosophical presuppositions, and arbitrarily apply those presuppositions to their interpretation of the available empirical data.”
enjoy
The question was, "Where are the transitional fossils?" In all those cases there are scientists that believe that the fossils in question represent transition and list their spectific reasons for believing it. At the same time there are other scientists who disagree with their findings. That's the scientific process at work. At the other end there are folks like you. You enter into it with the presumption that evolution does not take place, and will discount anything that differs from that. So be it. What, in your opinion, does the fossil record show?