The thing that gets most paleontologist's panties in a wad is when you mention that they have never found any form of itermediate fossil.

While I have heard it claimed, say by creationists, that this issue gets paleontologists' undies in a bunch, I have yet to see any independent verification that this issue does, in fact, get paleos' knickers in a twist.

FWIW, it is an issue raised often enough for a a.t.o FAQ last updated in 1997. A small excerpt is:

To demonstrate anything about how a species arose, whether it arose gradually or suddenly, you need exceptionally complete strata, with many dead animals buried under constant, rapid sedimentation. This is rare for terrestrial animals. Even the famous Clark's Fork (Wyoming) site, known for its fine Eocene mammal transitions, only has about one fossil per lineage about every 27,000 years. Luckily, this is enough to record most episodes of evolutionary change (provided that they occurred at Clark's Fork Basin and not somewhere else), though it misses the rapidest evolutionary bursts. In general, in order to document transitions between species, you specimens separated by only tens of thousands of years (e.g. every 20,000-80,000 years). If you have only one specimen for hundreds of thousands of years (e.g. every 500,000 years), you can usually determine the order of species, but not the transitions between species. If you have a specimen every million years, you can get the order of genera, but not which species were involved. And so on.

I'm assuming you've read all of that, so wonder what you think the flaws are. And is there a fossil record of a paleontologist with torqued BVDs??

(not trying to turn this thread into a.t.o, and I even hesitated to respond, except that I see that the thread has already gone off in other directions!)