[Non-Sequitur]

A list of “transitional forms” with apparent detailed descriptions seem to me like a way of getting around the fact that these are not really transitional forms.

The link explains why science believes these are examples of transitional fossils. Why are they wrong?

Why do you depend on pictures for your evidence? Why isn't a description sufficient?

...of these animals would demonstrate the vastness of unfilled physical gaps and unanswered questions.

Well of course there are unfilled gaps and unanswered questions. Science is all about filling those gaps and answering those questions, and it attempts to do so every day. Unlike Intelligent Design, science doesn't claim to have all the answers already. And unlike ID, there are no questions that science isn't interested in trying to answer.

[reasonisfaith]

Language is important. To fix your misunderstanding: I never said I depend on pictures for evidence. That’s a distortion.

Language and graphics should be used. When language alone is used, it gives a false sense of detail.