Argument #1: Transitional Fossils

[pocaracas]

Lots. Absent soft tissue and/or DNA, it is often hard to tell whether two somewhat different fossil specimens really represent two species, or different sexes within the same species, or normal range of morphological variation within the same sex of the same species. Sometimes it is even hard to tell if two different specimens really represent two individual of same species, but died at different ages, or even different part of the year, resulting in differences in annual growths such as deer antlers.

Also, many species are recognized based on partial remains. If two sets of non-overlapping partial fossil remains are discovered, it is often impossible to tell whether they represent two different species, or are different parts of animals of the same species.

Sometimes mistakes happen in reverse, such as assigning two non-overlapping sets of partial remains to the same species, when in fact they came from different species, resulting in fanciful fossil reconstructions of a single species that really consist of parts of two different species.

That is why it is unrealistic and deceptive to draw a rendering of an "transitional" organism when all you have is a tooth and a part of a jawbone.

You're, of course, aware that science isn't made from the drawings and artistic depictions which are based on very incomplete fossils, aren't you?
The science that comes through to the masses is very simplified and the drawings help the public relate... the actual scientists couldn't care less about those drawings.... so I fail to understand why you keep bringing them forward...