Yes. It's a coherent whole. There are no fossils of anythng but.
That's why some celebrated evolutionists hold to the theory of "punctuated equilibria" or punk eek as it's less affectionately called. I believe Gould is a punk eeker. Anyway, in order to explain away the lack of fossil evidence for evolution, these folks hold that evolution occurred in great leaps.
In the end, it's is even less credible than the theory of gradual evolution.
You might want to peruse Darwin on Trial by Philip Johnson. It's only around 150 pages. You could read it in one sitting.
I don't understand. Why does its being a coherent whole mean it can't be a transitional form?
Punctuated evolution was more popular when there were fewer transitional forms known. There still are gaps, mind you; there aren't as many well-preserved bird fossils as we'd like. But this problem has largely been alleviated by DNA sequencing, which allows us to determine the rate of change at a molecular level. Certainly at the molecular level, there is evidence of a few large scale rearrangements of the genome (e.g. in the early lineage of bears, for reasons nobody understands) but gradualism seems to be the rule rather than the exception.
There was a marvellous poster-map in Science about 2 years ago, lining up homologous parts of the genome in about 20 organisms. It doesn't presuppose evolution or anything else - it's just data - but IMHO it makles a convincing case for it, although I'd certainly like to know what happened in the early ancestry of the bears. Science is, after all, seldom complete.
I'll get around to reading Johnson's book one of these days, but you have to understand I'm not exactly optimistic about the thoughts of a law professor on my own subject (one of my major research areas is DNA and RNA structure).