Creationists have eyes. Creationists don't have any evidence to lay those eyes upon. Of course there are things you'd like people to believe are evidence. But even your own people belie that. Sorry. There are no transitional fossils. Never have been and never will be.
But you can keep looking if you want. Nobody's stopping you. On the other hand, I think it's high time we stop publicly funding this nonsense. The shell game has gone on quite long enough.
But even your own people don't believe that. Amazing how that lag edit tool works..
This gets rather funny. Several people, myself twice, have provided links loaded with positive evidence that evolution has occurred. You and others simply chant the mantra that there is no evidence.
This is a science of not seeing. It can teach us nothing.
When creationists do attempt to address the existence of mountains of what they say does not exist, they simply pretend that any lawyerly objection, any paragraph filled with negative-sounding terms concerning an object or an experiment makes it go away.
Think of the difference between a thing not existing at all and someone having some mud to throw at it, justifiably or not. (In the case of creationist assaults on scientific data, the mud-slinging is more willful misinterpretation and ignorance on the part of the creationist.) It is asserted that something reasonably to be expected, even predicted by a theory has not been found. This is said in the obvious hope that the statement can slip by unchallenged.
But the fallback trench is already prepared. If someone points out that this stuff does exist in museums and collections all over the world, not to mention any roadside cut near my house, maybe even gives some specific instances of such, then some creationist or even (Gasp!) an evolutionist somewhere has written something bad about the thing cited or something like it. Doesn't matter if the seeming criticism is valid or not, if anyone anywhere has sounded what looks out of context like a sour note, then a thing doesn't exist after all.
This is creation science, what we need in our science classrooms now to vault into the 21st century. (NOT!)
I, and thousands of others, cite Archaeopteryx as an example of a transitional fossil; it has a mix of reptilian and avian features. Explain to me why I'm wrong.