Well Pete... every time I try to hone in on one point, you sidestep by returning to another one I answer before!

".."....representative links..."    what might they be but the fossils that gould admitted were extremely poorly joined together by transitionals."
   'Admitted' is a loaded term designed to suggest that the position shows some innate weakness, when all it is is a statement about the obvious. All scientific measurements indicate very long time periods... longer than you choose to 'believe', even when shown the evidence.
   Consider.. IF science is ultimately totally correct about the long time-frame (deep time, as you choose to label it), it is still absolutely and obviously true that they will never, never, never HAVE all the transitional forms!! Millions of years means billions of individual samples were not buried in a form that could BE found. I have made this point many times...yet you just twist that from me AND Gould as if it DISproves the analysis. Doing that simply indicates that you are ignoring & evading the actual value of the forms that ARE found. When dating processes are mapped against the changes in the transitional forms we have found, it is clear that there was an evolutionary process involved. You deny this based on shallow & faulty understanding of the science... but you offer no counter explanation of the data except to rely on your religious beliefs. What do you think did cause the seemingly clear transition from early hominids to the finds in Africa and to caves in France? You want to deny the dating of Neanderthals and their human counterparts that can be accurately dating by radio-carbon decay!

Now... it pains me to have to do this again:

"so flies become....flies! how about them turning into something else after multiple generations observation?."

NO ONE IS CLAIMING that flies become birds...or whatever. Just as the stupid remark about "men being descended from monkeys" is not an accurate
representation of what IS shown by the records and by comparison to other types of lineages.
What is asserted is that all life did come from simple, lower forms in very complex ways... as shown over & over by bio-chemical processes compared to radio-carbon dating compared to geological mapping compared to cosmological analysis ...etc. None of this is directly incompatible with some metaphysical Being kick-starting it all..... but that's not as 'comforting' as accepting the 'ancient manuscript' thesis...hmmm?

finally: "I am not impressed , bill , by what and how you think a deity might choose to communicate with his creation. and neither am I impressed by your suggestion that he could not use ancient times men as the means he chose to convey his word.."

*shrug* how could you be? You are committed to accepting those things in spite of science and reason(again, if God gave us reason, why does that reason lead the majority to accept science and to realize that we flawed humans might get confused & need some ..ummm... clear reminders... of what His will is?)