How long have you been posting here NJ? Surely you can do better than this old canard...
The fossil record is inept in answering these questions because we do not see any clear examples of transitional forms. Indeed, this has long been the problem for evolutionists. But the argument is brought up so much now or days against evolution that it is not as widely admitted as it was in the past.
Of course, all known species are in fact transitional, but here is one example of a recently discovered "transitional fossil" (to use the informal term). It was all over the news two years ago. The best thing about it is that it wasn't found by accident - paleontologists searched geological structures of a certain type and age, thus demonstrating the predictive capacity of the physical evidence used to support the TOE.
I wonder that if mudskippers were extinct right now, if evolutionists would make the argument that they were really creatures in transition from water to terrestrial, or vice versa.
They possibly would, depending of course on how the mudskipper evolved from its current form. Where's the problem? All species are transitional. Mudskippers provide a clear example of a creature adapted to a life split between the land and the sea, as do pinnipeds (sea-lions etc) and many other species. As time passes these creatures continue to adapt to changing environments.
And I've read your posts as well. They lack any substance. They are reminiscent of Rick JB's posts which are pithy, at best, and ad hominem at worst.
How is posting a recent example of a transitional fossil in response to an utterly groundless assertion that none exist "ad hominem"? I made no personal attacks - I was merely expressing surprise that you continue to use such arguments given your long involvement here.
I wrote in response to what you posted - nothing more, nothing less. If seeking to directly correct a falsehood is "pithy" to you then so be it.