The Power of the New Intelligent Design...

If you know how evolution works, choose one evolutionary transition from the fossil record and describe how it happened.

Wait ... let me get this straight ... you claim to know how evolution produced evolutionary transitions evident in the fossil record, but you can't describe the process involved in even one of them?
Do you realise that your empty cupboard makes you look like a fraud and a bs-artist?I called your bluff and you came up with zilch ... zero ... nada ... neante. How embarrassment!

Unresolved. As a Darwinoid, you don't like going down this road, do you? Can't say I blame you. I will certainly ask, "If you know how evolution works, how do you know it happened that way?"Speaking of which ... If you know how evolution works, you must know how at least one evolutionary transition in the fossil record proceeded. Please detail one such example and then explain how you know it happened that way. Thank you. You know the effort is beyond you ... or anyone else. Why not try a little honesty and simply admit that you don't know how any evolutionary transition in the fossil record proceeded?

Evasion. APauling. Cowardly. Shameful.

Oh, so you know that human descended from bacteria?

How did I take that quote "out of context"? The quote describes what the fossil record reveals - what the article says further on doesn't alter the quoted description of the fossil record.

I'm not claiming that pre-C biota can not be ancestors of C biota. I'm claiming that the massive gap in morphology and function between pre-C and C biota is not consistent with the theory of evolution.Where is the vast number of transitional fossils that are required to bridge the huge gap?​ You need similarities to form a nested hierarchy. I can't see how the profound dissimilarities between pre-C biota and C biota can form a nested hierarchy.Here is a brief description of pre-C verses C biota:"A series of dark, craggy pinnacles rises 80 metres above the grassy plains of Namibia. The peaks call to mind something ancient — the burial mounds of past civilizations or the tips of vast pyramids buried by the ages.
The stone formations are indeed monuments of a faded empire, but not from anything hewn by human hands. They are pinnacle reefs, built by cyanobacteria on the shallow sea floor 543 million years ago, during a time known as the Ediacaran period. The ancient world occupied by these reefs was truly alien. The oceans held so little oxygen that modern fish would quickly founder and die there. A gooey mat of microbes covered the sea floor at the time, and on that blanket lived a variety of enigmatic animals whose bodies resembled thin, quilted pillows. Most were stationary, but a few meandered blindly over the slime, grazing on the microbes. Animal life at this point was simple, and there were no predators. But an evolutionary storm would soon upend this quiet world.Within several million years, this simple ecosystem would disappear, and give way to a world ruled by highly mobile animals that sported modern anatomical features. The Cambrian explosion, as it is called, produced arthropods with legs and compound eyes, worms with feathery gills and swift predators that could crush prey in tooth-rimmed jaws."What sparked the Cambrian explosion? | NatureHow can going froma mostly-sessile "gooey mat of microbes" and "animals that resembled thin, quilted pillows" (pre-Cambrian)to"highly mobile animals that sported modern anatomical features ... arthropods with legs and compound eyes, worms with feathery gills and swift predators that could crush prey in tooth-rimmed jaws" (Cambrian)possibly form a nested hierarchy? It's like saying a kettle and a Ferrari from a nested hierarchy, is it not?​

I don't follow. Are you suffering from a dose of discombobulation, or am I? How does the rest of the paragraph render my quote "out of context"?

​ ​ Nice try, con-man, but no cigar. By saying "It proves common ancestry and evolution", you've painted yourself into a corner - since science can't prove it, no one can prove it. So you've uttered a falsehood.

​ Do you know that humans descended from bacteria or not?

Oh, so you can prove that humans descended from bacteria, but science can't. Interesting.

Losing hurts, don't it?

Not at all. I accept that nested hierarchies exist within phyla. What's lacking, viz-a-viz the theory of evolution, are fossil links between the various phyla, which are necessary if one wants to claim that the entire fossil record forms a nested hierarchy.

I hate to see a grown man cry, but you brought it on yourself. Not my fault ... I'm just doing my job.

This article says you're wrong:"Contrary to popular belief, there is no such thing as a scientific proof ... all scientific knowledge is tentative and provisional, and nothing is final. There is no such thing as final proven knowledge in science."
https://www.psychologytoday.com/...cience-i-scientific-proof