Show me a Paleontology text that has even one series of fossils from a sequential strata that step by step presents the morphological changes from one species to another.
I have three right here on my bookshelf. Why don't you hop on 45, drive up to Dallas and I'll show them to you.
Full representative fossils. Not fragments and creative mix and match force fits.
Your little attempt to poison the well is noted and rejected. Not only to fragments provide some information, we actually have a number of nearly full skeletons and even partial ones that can be extrapolated because of bilateral symmetry. Lucy for example is "only" about 40% complete. But, because of bilateral symmetry, and the fact that many of the bones preserved are from different parts of her body, we can "flesh" out her skeleton to about 75%.
Without this evidence Evolution lacks real world proof. All else is conjecture.
No scientist, or even a layman proficient in scientific discussion would use evidence and proof in the same sentence.
Before you state "there are transition fossils" you may want to look for the evidence. Then present such evidence.
And yet this post is
full of assertions that are counter to evidence one could find by plugging a handful of words into a search engine.
The foundation Evolution is based on has no evidence. All we see are already existing species. No series of changes to show Evolution occurred.
Do you want to face this issue that Darwin feared may prove his hypothesis wrong?
Yeah, like these two microparagraphs. ^^^
This matter would be "settled" in every Paleontology and Historical Geology text, in full color photos of each fossil, its state of transition thats obvious, and further ptesentation of the hundreds of other "sequential strata that shows the series of transitional fossils, photo by photo, location, age in stratum, environmental conditions, and the like, beyond doubt PROVING EVOLUTION.
There's that used of "proof" again. And, you do realize that most photos are copywritten and thus cost money for a publisher to reuse, right? Textbooks are expensive enough without your goalposts moved to the moon.
Nature magazine would be presenting the "latest set of transition fossils found" on a regular basis to futher support Evolution, the very foundational evidence.
As has been explained to you several times, the days of fossils being the foundational evidence for evolution is long past. We can learn more from genetics than we ever could from fossils with regard to relatedness. The fossils are a thick, delicious layer of frosting on an already very rich cake. And have you tried looking at a copy of Nature lately?
Here's an article from June regarding early primate evolution and guess what? It's got photos!
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v498/n7452/full/nature12200.html
But look at Nature Magazine through the 144 years of publication, there are no "transitional fossils series" presented, only CARTOONS and "INFERRED". Sorry, cartoons and something inferred are not fundamental, foundational evidence that proves Evolution. All they present are already existing species and "truths" such as Punctuated Equilibrium by Doctor so-and-so.
If you go to a source as common as Wikipedia and the transitional fossil page there are 5 different color photos of the fossils in the Prominent Examples section, so I don't know where you're getting this "cartoons" garbage. There's plenty of photos of fossils. As far as information derived from those fossils, there's pages and pages of analysis, numbers big and small, words big and small and graphs, charts, etc. just in that one article linked above.
Transitional fossil - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v498/n7452/full/nature12200.html