Since our idea of 'evidence' is so radically different, as I said before, such an exchange is pointless. If you find the 'young Earth' information to be 'evidence', then we don't even have any hope for any kind of fruitful scientific discussion. Let's just say I've seen a vast wealth of 'transitional' forms that you clearly won't admit exist, anymore than you can admit the truth in this simple, obvious dichotomy.
But you can easily prove it's likelyhood to yourself. Just consider every single system you know. If you make a million small changes to a thing, you end up with a very different thing than you started with.
You're reduced to ridiculing this obvious truth. Which should tell you something.
That, my friend, is congitive dissonnance. You have two opposing ideas that conflict.
You have no way of knowing what I will or will not admit because you haven't showed me anything, and it seems like you refuse to. You're making assumptions.
Furthermore, I don't believe you have any examples to provide. Or you would. Plain and simple. To put it bluntly, you wouldn't act like a stubborn child and say "you won't believe me so I'm not telling you!" if you actually had something to offer.
Show me where I've ridiculed anything you've offered. In the meantime, all you have done is ignored pointed questions and picked apart my opinions without defending your own.
But the problem evolutionists have is that each one of those changes has to be beneficial. We know how seldom mutations are beneficial. To postulate that we can have a long series of such changes, all of them beneficial is ludicrous. To postulate that this has happened millions of times, for each species living and dead, is utterly unbelievable.