Well, we already know about the 'so called' transitionals of humans. So you can tick them off my list. As for the other nice complicated names, that's all very well but no actual and definate transitionals have been found. Even those blokes down at Cambridge who where evolutionist told me that. So naturally I agree with Darwin, that the fossils are indeed the worst part of his theory.
First, define what you think a transitional fossil is, and then we will find one for you. Or better yet, explain why Archaeopteryx isn't a transitional fossil between reptiles and avians.
Second, how many transitionals would make any nested hierarchie complete in your eyes? Lets say, between land animal and sea mammmal for example. How many transitionals do you require, and I mean an exact number. Otherwise, no matter how many are found you are going to want more. I show you 1 and 2, and you ask where 1.5 is. Find 1.5 and you want 1.25 and 1.75. See the problem? We have to go on what we have found
so far.
However, I bet if Darwin saw the number of fossils we have today, he wouldn't have claimed it was the worst part of his theory. The current Hominid skull series alone would have probably been enough to buckle his knees.
™ Version 4.2
