Even with bolding, this evaded my notice amid all the brew-hee-hee.
Let's examine your follow-up on this thought.
A Darwinist Believer may claim, "We are VERY CLOSE to finding them!" Close may be good enough for horseshoes, hand grenades, and government work, but that is not how Science operates...at least, it ought not operate that way.
You are definitely saying that scientists are scratching their heads wondering where all the transitionals predicted by Darwin might be. That should clearly preclude the conversation following this kind of template. You are ABSOLUTELY NOT saying, "Yes, science THINKS it has the transitionals but it is wrong." You are saying, "Science DOES NOT THINK IT HAS THEM and is--however belatedly--wondering why not."
Remember that. One more time: In one version, the statement in your post, science knows it does not have the transitionals. Thus, you're not going to change your story to one in which it does think it has them but you personally know it doesn't really.
So, the only question before us is whether science itself thinks it has found Darwin's transitionals over the last 150 or so years. Here's a sample of why I say it does and it has.
Placemarker.
Contrary to Darwin's expectation that new data would reveal gradualistic continuity with slow and steady expansion, all major discoveries of the past century have only heightened the massiveness and geological abruptness of this formative event..."
(Gould, Stephen J., Nature, vol. 377, October 1995, p.682.) Source.