Some of us aren't imagining the rest of the line up. We understand that if evolutionism was right, the rest should be found, and before you say I don't understand, you might check what what evolutionists themselves have said, including yourself.

I doubted very much your claims about presenting millions. I didn't recall seeing such, and when Bex didn't recall it either, it firmed up my confidence. Then it occurred to me that my "find" feature's getting rusty.

Finding for "million" in the thread yielded no actual series or group of a million or more, but it did lead me to Post #42015RAZD just up & says this fairly abruptly. It appears to refer to the Foraminifera.

The link says
Now it could be RAZD has confused himself, and thinks that up & saying there are millions of transitionals makes it so. Or it could be we have another case of RAZD's math.

I have to be honest and say I don't know for sure what's going on. But while checking the link for any hint of "millions" (as if anyone could closely examine a million fossils and make a case for each one!) I found them saying some interesting thingsWhere indeed! While it may be quite an feather in the cap to finally discover such an holy grail after all this time, it doesn't solve the mystery of the millions of missing grails.

There's moreNot accurate. It would be a mistake to rely upon the lack of "transitionals". Over 99.9% of them were missing from the get-go, and this didn't stop folks from filling in the vast void with their own imagination.

The fact is, Darwinists were confident they could find some fossils and invent stories about them; just as easily as RAZD linked the eohippus to both dog an horse. You don't have to deal with the whole critter; you can "reconstruct" whatever you please from a tooth or a few bones.

Historically, there was also a desire to make Darwinism distinct from versions of evolution which involved species randomly springing up any time any place. Some thought spontaneous generation was common; while Darwinists thought it rare, even claiming a single event (although this claim is window dressing/distraction). Huxley argued both sides of this non-issue.

So the prediction was incorporated, as a means of making evolutionism appear more scientific. They had no expectation they'd be called on this failed prediction, since Darwin listed excuse after excuse right up front. But anyone - not just creationists - does well to point out the facts.

Someone doesn't know what literal means. When propagandizing, not everyone's concerned about accuracy. The reporter should've caught this even if the "scientist" in question was ignorant.

The article is almost entirely hype. I found conclusions and opinions, but nary a thing in the way of evidence. Toward the end, I noticed
Isn't it lucky for us we have this team to interpret the evidence! That the record readily lends itself to a "sudden speciation" interpretation is quite the dangerous coincidence. Dodged a serious bullet there, eh? Just think what a creationist would say if he knew this!

Classic argument-from-spam. The burden of proof is on the spamee, eh?

And it ain't like he'd bat :halloweenbat: an eye if he saw it done (many a "transitional" has already been thoroughly debunked already).