Subject: If evolution really happed, why aren't there a lot of transitional fossils?

    If evolution really happend then wouldn't there be a lot of 
transitional fossils, instesad of just the few that people have found 
(which turned out to be frauds anyway).  Take Lucy for example.  The 
constructed most of her from a few bones and a knee cap that was found 
many yards away, deeper down in the earth.  Also her hands and feet 
where those of a monkey.  Experts have come to conclude that she was 
just an extinct form of monkey.
    Also if during the evolutionary process something did evolve, it 
more than likely would have died without reproducing, because it 
wouldn't have had the same genetic as the species that gave birth to 
it.  Most mutations that take place do not help a species, and the 
ones that don't hurt the species arn't passed on to the next 
generation do to the fact that when the two strands of DNA come 
together during replication the template stand will repair the 
mutation.  So you would need a male and a female to both have the same 
mutation and then mate for the evolutionary process to continue.
    The peppered moth is also used as evidence for evolution, but the 
fact is that the peppered moth always staied a moth even though it 
changed colors.  I know that natural selection does happen, but it 
does not prove evolution.  All it does is make that species stronger. 
Darwin's finches, does not prove evolution either.  The finch is still 
a finch.  It didn't evolve from a lizzard, and the finch didn't evolve 
into something else.  It started as a bird and ended as a bird.
    I could go on and on about all of the things that are wrong with 
the theory of evolution.  After all its a theory and is has yet to be 
proven.

Re: If evolution really happed, why aren't there a lot of transitional fossils?