[ml1954]

So I take it you are now admitting you cannot define the 'missing link' which you previously stated would convince you. You've now modified your evidence requirements from a 'missing link' to many missing links. I'll assume you are not moving the goalposts intentionally and just didn't elaborate previously.

So how many 'missing links' are missing, in your view? I assume you realize that every fossil found that fits into a 'gap' in the fossil record between two previously discovered fossils creates two new gaps. So the more fossils found that fit into gaps between previously discovered fossils the more gaps (missing links) are created. At some point, reasonable people conclude that there is a connection and progression between the data points, especially when that connection is supported by other independent lines of evidence.

So I'm back to my original question to you. What would it take to convince you? You do not seem to be able to state what evidence you require.

[SoldierDad]

Irrefutable evidence that these "animals" are actually evolutionary changes instead of just distinctly different animals with similarities.

[Virginia-American]

... I assume you realize that every fossil found that fits into a 'gap' in the fossil record between two previously discovered fossils creates two new gaps. ...

One fact that's not often emphasized is that fossils always fit into these gaps. We never see, for example, fossilized pegasi or centaurs. There are plenty between dinosaurs and birds, or reptiles and mammals, but none whatsoever between mammals and birds.

Don't forget Tiktaalik; the ToE was used to predict what to look for and where to dig - yet more confirmation that there's something real behind the theory.