Transitional Fossils

I was surprised that I didn't find a thread on this particular topic so I've started one. This comes from a quote posted under the "education discussion" at:
http://EvC Forum: Creation Science In Schools: Give Us A Lesson Plan -->EvC Forum: Creation Science In Schools: Give Us A Lesson Plan I find this a very odd quote to supply and would like to see it backed up a bit.From my limited understanding of the history involved I would say that there were about [b]zero

It's a quote. And a misleading one - for instance horse evolution has been revised to become more "bushy" and less linear. But there are new transitionals turning up all the time. The whale ancestors found in the '90s, the feathered dinosaurs found in China, more of the earliest tetrapods.

Yup I know that. Just waiting for the expert who posted the quote to explain all this.

How can we have "fewer" transitions? Did we forget some?

I think the suggestion is that some proved to be wrong. However, I'm waiting for Keith to support that.

Here is another of the quotes Keith used to support his view;

quote:

---

As for the lowest level of taxonomic classification, the popular evolutionist Steven J. Gould said:
"In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and fully formed." (Natural History, 86:12-16)

---

Could you elaborate on this Keith? Since a species change is usually (always) a pretty small change (sometimes not immediately obvious by looking at the living animal talk about only bones) why would we expect the fossil record to have any trace at all of the few slightly changed intermediaries? If you think this is somesort of telling blow to the ToE then you'll have to explain why. It seems to be "mined" indeed without any thought of what it actually means.