I believe your side typically claim that there is no evidence. Now you produce the funny second sentence above, the first part of which is the unsupported assertion that the evidences are "weak," the second part of which (intended in support of the first part?) is a simple repetition of the mantra that such things do not exist at all. That is to say, you don't even make sense here. The stuff exists. You have a very funny way of dealing with that.
Most of the 200 or more species cited in that link were discovered after Darwin published. That is, his theory predicted that such things should have existed and, notwithstanding "the imperfections of the geologic record," at least some of them ought to turn up. They have turned up in abundance. That this has happened is in fact a fulfillment of the predictions of the theory, but creationists are allowed to call evidence a lack of evidence, a fulfillment a failure. They are allowed to lie. This is not a good testimony to the effects of faith in things unseen.