Not the kind I'm talking about - transference between major animal groups. That's why Darwinism is dead letter. They're trotting around a corpse.
Compare that to the immeasurable and abundant amount of evidence of intelligent design.
This is like a summary judgment case: no genuine dispute as to a material fact.
I read and understood your post. There are discovered transitional species showing characteristics of different ‘major animal groups’. In the fish example cited earlier, species that have characteristics of both fish and amphibians.
So much of this evidence is at your fingertips, easily found with searches, and much of it simple enough for a non-biologist like myself to understand.
So it’s your contention that there is no evidence that mammals evolved from fish, albeit with many intervening steps? The evidence that fish are older than lobe-finned fish, which are older than amphibians, which are older than animals that could lay their eggs on land, which are older than animals that have characteristic mammalian structures...you reject all of that?
And furthermore, you claim that there is evidence for intelligent design that meets a higher standard than the above? Care to give an example?