"Unsupported assertions" are claims without evidence. Maybe these are hard for people to spot who think they are a legitimate form of proof for anything.

Why are marine invertebrate fossils supposed to be a problem for evolution? There are known transitional fossils for these as well, as Glenn Morton discusses here. Glenn Morton was a YEC until he found work as a geophysicist for an oil company, and daily had to confront physical evidence that the earth is old. This tends to happen to geologists. By the way, Morton is still a devouted Christian -- he found ways to reconcile this with an old earth and evolution.

I'm surprised you're still trumpeting Woodmorappe's list, despite the links I've given you which show numerous errors he has made and which show that his data is unreliable (not surprising, given his track record of errors in other areas). I suppose if I offered you that hypothetical trilobite reworked fossil, you'd demand better proof that it wasn't found in its original place, despite the very strong body of evidence for this to be the case. Yet, you'd be wondering why no one would be batting an eyelid if you were the one shouting, "An anomalous fossil! Evolution is dead!"

I'm not "hopeful" about anything, I'm just showing you why when an "anomaly" is found, it needs to first be researched and verified as a genuine anomaly before it overturns a major theory. Do you deny that reworked fossils exist? This would, as I said before, necessitate denying that erosion occurs. Do your beliefs push you this far into absurdity?

Evogoggles, evospeak, yawn . . . so no explanation yet for why trilobites are at the bottom of the fossil record, dinosaurs above them, and hominids above them? While we're on this subject I'm going to keep asking you until I get an answer. That is the fundamental question about the fossil record and you're dodging it left right and centre.