This...
Neither point 10 or 15 in that long post speaks to the lack of fossil evidence of an evolutionary path from sufficiently complex species to another sufficiently complex species through single (or otherwise probable) mutations. What I need to see is a chain of species S1, S2, Sn, where S1 is not the same species as Sn, yet for every q Sq+1 is a mutated direct descendant of Sq.
...is saying the same thing in so many words as this...
Even if a creationist does accept a fossil as transitional between two species, he or she may then insist on seeing other fossils intermediate between it and the first two. These frustrating requests can proceed ad infinitum and place an unreasonable burden on the always incomplete fossil record.
whether you realize it or not, with all due respect. And it was 10 and 14 I recommended you read for the "genetic" objections to evolution. Not 15.
But really the whole post is quite useful, even given its length.
Yes, I meant point 14, not 15, of that post. I read 10 and 14, and scanned the rest.
These frustrating requests can proceed ad infinitum
I would object to "ad infinitum". Naturally, one cannot expect the fossil of every transitional species to be found, but there should be enough of continual patterns found to state that mechanism of random mutations can lead to speciation.