Not interested in debating what "is" and what "is not" a transition fossil? You bet I'm not. Countless times on countless "crevo" threads I've seen it debated, with no fruit to show for it. Why? I think this portion of what Darwins Revenge posted on another thread is a good indication of the problem.
Actually, paleontologists know of many detailed examples of fossils intermediate in form between various taxonomic groups. One of the most famous fossils of all time is Archaeopteryx, which combines feathers and skeletal structures peculiar to birds with features of dinosaurs. A flock’s worth of other feathered fossil species, some more avian and some less, has also been found. A sequence of fossils spans the evolution of modern horses from the tiny Eohippus. Whales had four-legged ancestors that walked on land, and creatures known as Ambulocetus and Rodhocetus helped to make that transition [see “The Mammals That Conquered the Seas,” by Kate Wong; Scientific American, May]. Fossil seashells trace the evolution of various mollusks through millions of years. Perhaps 20 or more hominids (not all of them our ancestors) fill the gap between Lucy the australopithecine and modern humans.
Creationists, though, dismiss these fossil studies. They argue that Archaeopteryx is not a missing link between reptiles and birds — it is just an extinct bird with reptilian features . They want evolutionists to produce a weird, chimeric monster that cannot be classified as belonging to any known group.[47's editorial here: Which is EXACTLY what you and others on this thread are doing] Even if a creationist does accept a fossil as transitional between two species, he or she may then insist on seeing other fossils intermediate between it and the first two. These frustrating requests can proceed ad infinitum and place an unreasonable burden on the always incomplete fossil record.
Sound familiar? Seems like this is EXACTLY what was demanded on this thread. Also, it's exactly what Ham is suggesting in the quote I posted that started this all.
So again, am I interested in playing the anti-evolution shell game of "Give me a transition fossil, ANY one, except THAT one or THAT one or THAT one....."? Not a chance!
What we dispute is that a series of random mutations is what had lead from one species to another species. We often see species 1, species 2, etc., ... species N. But even the adjacent species on that imaginary line are still too far apart: they do not appear to be a product of a single mutation. So finding one more species does not really help your case: what I want to see is a cloud of specimens with species 1 at one edge of the cloud and species 2 at the other edge. Until I see that, all I see proven is that we previously knew of N species and now we know of N+1 species and all have similarities.
It is not semantics. The theory postulates that one mutation at a time, one species becomes another species. So prove the theory.