[BroJoeK]

Busko: "There are no transitional fossils..."

Every individual, without exception, is "transitional" between its ancestors and its descendants.
Every fossil, without exception, shows features similar-to but changed-from earlier fossils, and many of those features are further modified in later fossils.
They are all "transitional"

As for human and ape fossils here, yet again, is a representative sample of transitional forms:

•(A) Pan troglodytes, chimpanzee, modern
•(B) Australopithecus africanus, STS 5, 2.6 My
•(C) Australopithecus africanus, STS 71, 2.5 My
•(D) Homo habilis, KNM-ER 1813, 1.9 My
•(E) Homo habilis, OH24, 1.8 My
•(F) Homo rudolfensis, KNM-ER 1470, 1.8 My •(G) Homo erectus, Dmanisi cranium D2700, 1.75 My
•(H) Homo ergaster (early H. erectus), KNM-ER 3733, 1.75 My
•(I) Homo heidelbergensis, "Rhodesia man," 300,000 - 125,000 y
•(J) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Ferrassie 1, 70,000 y
•(K) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Chappelle-aux-Saints, 60,000 y
•(L) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, Le Moustier, 45,000 y
•(M) Homo sapiens sapiens, Cro-Magnon I, 30,000 y
•(N) Homo sapiens sapiens, modern

For a longer list of transitional fossils, check out this site.

[Ha Ha Thats Very Logical]

Always nice to see that family tree. I remember someone around here used to post that and ask the creationists to identify which ones were apes and which were human—they were all sure they had to be one or the other, even if the apes might be extinct and the humans deformed or diseased. Well, they managed to label them, but the funny thing was that they couldn’t agree on which was which. It never seemed to occur to them that that was a strong indicator that they might be transitional species.

[DennisR]

Hate to tell you this, but anyone can take a bunch of pictures like you have posted, display them, and opine that these are the “transitional fossils.” You have absolutely no proof that this is true, right?