We'll make it even easier. Show the fossil remains of any primate in the same rock stratum as a dinosaur.
Considering the numbers, that would be quite a find, wouldn't it?
Why, out of all the billions of fossils and millions of species that have been cataloged to date, do you want to restrict attention to a tiny sliver of a sub phylum that amounts to perhaps only .01% of all fossils? Complex invertebrates, usually complete specimens, comprise the vast majority of fossils, roughly 95%. The remaining 5% consists mainly of plants and algae, %4.75; insects, 0.24%; vertebrates, mostly fish; .0125%. Of this minuscule sliver an even tinier sliver is left for the land-dwelling vertebrates, most of which are represented by a bone or less. Divide the minuscule sliver of land dwelling vertebrates even more to reduce the class to primates.
Not an easy task to find something like that.
Why do you restrict the sample so severely to prove your point? With the numbers 99.99% in your favor, shouldn't it be easier by many orders of magnitude to produce any fossil remains, say for example, of a transitional leading up to the complex invertebrates, and between invertebrates and vertebrates? Those must have been huge events in earth's history. Surely you can show some fossil remains that clearly demonstrate those transitions?
Cordially,