". . .Fossils may tell us many things, but one thing they can never disclose is whether they were ancestors of anything else." Dr. Colin Patterson, British Museum of Natural History
It is actually this (the above) statement which is the key to interpreting the Sunderland quote correctly; it is not possible to say for certain whether a fossil is in the direct ancestral line of a species group. Lionel Thevnissen of Talk Origins.
The alleged out of context quote.
"I fully agree with your comments about the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would have certainly included them....". Dr. Colin Patterson, British Museum of Natural History.
The Patterson quote was not taken out of contest. And with the "it is not possible to say for certain" quote from Thevnissen you end up with "transitional forms" being nothing but SWAGs.
What form do you believe a "direct" illustration would take? Do you even understand what he is and is not saying in this quote?
What Patterson says is by looking at a fossil it is not possibe to determine if you are looking at a direct ancestor, or a some sort of branch or offshoot. Direct ancestry cannot be determined from fossil evidence; that's for comparitive genomics. We're not going to find direct transitions because in order for this to occur we would need fossils every parent, child, and subsequent descendent. Of course, such a thing is impossible. However, this is convienent for the supporters of creationism to latch on to, because they get to imply evolution is impossible and they get to quote a palaeontologist as saying something that sounds like transitions don't exist. By reading Patterson's actual work it is clear he doesn't believe this. Also, if you read the statement by Patterson, he explains himself how his words were surreptitious record and twisted against his will.