I don't want to get in a lengthy debate about it (not in this thread anyway), but there is actually a surprisingly small amount of what we would call transitional fossils.
Well, according to the syllabus there are clear examples and that is what biology students are basing their knowledge on.
According to gradualism we should be finding thousands of them (yet there are quite few - which is why the idea of punctuated equilibrium was put forward - and some of the ones we discover are being disproven such as the archaeopteryx as the most recent example). Also, all of the fossils show an organism that is fully-formed or complete (they aren't lesser or more simplistic as what would be expected when we look back thorugh the "evolutionary tree")
Well, according to gradualism we should be finding them all in different time periods. That's all.
Was put forward, but not proven. Proof would need to be shown by clear evidence. This is where your argument falls down. You can't prove something by lack of evidence.
"and there is fossil evidence of rapid change in evolution and shit"
Actually there is no fossil evidence of rapid change, all transitional fossils currently supported show gradual change over millions not thousands of years
I think you need to check the definition of punctuated equilibrium. The "rapid" change is millions of years, not thousands, just several million as opposed to several hundreds of millions or whatever.
And there is proof of this.
You know what, cbf arguing. We'll find out that I'm right when the answers come out.
Good day to you, sir.
)