I think I understand, but I still invite you to think about what exactly would constitute “some clear transition where the two species are clearly transforming from one into another.” Evolutionists would say that a bunch of skulls that we have a hard time saying were definitely ape or definitely human would be exactly what we would expect if apes and humans had a common ancestor. If you disagree, what else should we look for?
I have to stop posting in a few moments, but will try to answer quickly. My problem with the idea that transitional fossils have been found (they haven’t), is that one must ASSUME a great many things to arrive at the conclusions that are the basis of evolution. One must ASSUME, for example, that because two species look similar in some ways that they MUST have a common ancestor - not because fossils have actually been found to support that, but because certain scientists have a decidedly vested interest (and I would say a very un-scientific one) in making sure their conclusions are “proven”. Perhaps this is why they have been so eager to embrace every hoax find out there. The famed “Lucie” wasn’t even found intact, but was found over quite a bit of ground, but hey, it must be all one skeleton - right?? Evolutionists, in rejecting the concept of an intelligent creator, have to begin with the BIG BANG - which turns every proven scientific theory (”proven” being the operative word here)on its head. There was nothing, then - boom! Spontaneous life - which - PRESTO - turns into something else and adapts over time (but we really don’t have any fossils to PROVE this definitively). And they say Christian creationists must have to have a lot of faith for their belief.... WHEW!!