It lists *one* (Archaeoraptor). And before someone makes the common creationist implication that this was somehow a hoax promulgated by dishonest evolutionists, it was instead concocted by a Chinese peasant fossil gatherer who knew that "complete" fossils were worth more money when sold than partial fossils. So he joined two separate fossils as if they were two parts of a single broken slab and sold it to the next collector who came along.
Through a comedy of errors, including miscommunications and a deadline rush, National Geographic ended up touting it as a newly discovered transitional fossil in one of their issues, *before* it had been properly examined and verified. Significantly, two science journals rejected articles about the fossil specimen because there had not been time to independently verify it, and they were not willing to just take National Geographic's word for it.
Within *days* of National Geographic's issue hitting the stands, professionals raised pointed questions about the specimen, and within mere weeks it had been discredited and National Geographic admitted their error.
So far from this being an example of "sloppy or dishonest science", as creationists keep trying to hint that it is, it is instead an excellent example of how careful science is and how quickly it discovers error or dishonesty.
So what else ya got?
I absolutely do not believe my existence is pure accident and that I came from ooze.
You are welcome to believe any comforting thing you wish to embrace.
But the moment you misrepresent the reasons that the scientific community has come to certain conclusions to the contrary, expect to be called on it.
Case in point, evolution is hardly a matter of "pure accident". To call it that is to misrepresent it.