"NO TRANSITIONAL FORMS!"

The endlessly repeated "there are no transitional forms" mantra of YECs is an interesting study. First, the term "transitional form" is a slippery YEC term that YECs define in such a way as to make it impossible to ever demonstrate (even if we were just talking about human history and your own family tree!). But that aside, what I find interesting is how this YEC mantra persists regardless of how many "transitional" forms are found; which begs the question of how many "transitional" forms will it take to make a YEC happy before they're willing to acknowledge, "Okay, maybe, just maybe, those things might be related to each other"? And the answer, of course, is that no amount of "transitional" forms will ever be enough, because they've already pre-decided (before any evidence) that they are not related, no-way, no-how, no matter what.

The example that comes to mind is the origin of tetrapods (incorrectly called the "fish-to-amphibian" transition by YECs). And specifically I recall a picture in YEC Duane Gish's 1970s/1980s book "Evolution: the Fossils Say No!" that criticized the "lack of transitional/intermediate forms" between fish and tetrapods:

"THERE ARE NO TRANSITIONAL FORMS!"

The Gish picture (figure 1) is still used by YECs today (figure 1 caption) to say "look, fully formed fins & feet with no intermediate transitional forms in between!" 

Of course, Ichthyostega (discovered in 1932) was already old news, and before the days of the Internet information was harder to find, so perhaps Gish didn't know about Acanthostega (discovered 1952) which had characters intermediate between fish and Ichthyostega. Of course, once that discovery became more well known that still wasn't a good enough transitional form, so the YECs could still shout:

'THERE ARE NO TRANSITIONAL FORMS!"

And then, of course, more discoveries were made, but for whatever reason these weren't good enough, or didn't count, or still left large "gaps," so YECs felt they could still confidently shout:

"THERE ARE NO TRANSITIONAL FORMS!"

And then more discoveries were made...

"THERE ARE NO TRANSITIONAL FORMS!"

And still more discoveries were made (like the discovery of Tiktaalik in 2006)....

"THERE ARE NO TRANSITIONAL FORMS!"

*So evolution keeps changing, while young earth creationism stays the same ("THERE ARE NO TRANSITIONAL FORMS!"), and apparently no amount of "transitional forms" will ever be enough to get YECs to acknowledge, "Hey, you know, maybe, just maybe, those things might be related." OR EVEN JUST, "I still disagree, but I can see why everyone else concludes that they're related." 

Microraptor

One of the many notorious "croco-ducks" Evolution Deniers swore up and down we would never, ever, ever, ever, ever discover.

Thanks @varelse1. I learned something new.

In search of a name for something I encountered in the forums here last week that reminded me of a conversation I had in 1987 (and many conversations in-between), I was not surprised to learn the technique has been dubbed the Gish gallop.

I read Evolution the Fossils Say No in 1980. Gish is a real piece of work.

In the OP here, though, the technique is known as moving the goalposts.

Very true. And I like your "Gish Gallop." It's interesting how we (humans in general) tend to require less 'proof' for our own views, and impossible standards of proof for opposing views (at least, that's what I've observed in numerous forums; and not just on this topic). I guess it's a self-preservation thing. Unfortunately, in cases like "transitional forms" it is taken to the nth degree.

Another technique is the Hovind Hop.

1. Offer a million dollars to anybody who can show you a transitional fossil.

2. Never look at any evidence presented. Never pay the million dollars.

3. Declare victory

(Dude in Turkey did the same thing.)

Can we find similar-looking life today from one species to another, does that mean one came from another?

Before answering that maybe you should address the claim made in the OP:

"So evolution keeps changing, while young earth creationism stays the same ("THERE ARE NO TRANSITIONAL FORMS!"), and apparently no amount of "transitional forms" will ever be enough to get YECs to acknowledge, "Hey, you know, maybe, just maybe, those things might be related." OR EVEN JUST, "I still disagree, but I can see why everyone else concludes that they're related." 

*You may disagree (which is fine), but surely any reasonable person would at least understand why everyone might conclude they're related

I say there are fossils, you telling me all about them, who they were related to, how old they are, is taking that evidence beyond what we could possibly know but that doesn't stop you from telling me your facts. You like the reasoning of some not others, and because the conclusions of those you like fit the overall story you ascribe to, I'm the one with my head in the sand. You can belittle my honesty or intelligence or whatever makes you feel better now.

Don't conflate different forum topics. In the other forum topic you're refusing to acknowledge simple observational facts about the fossil record that have NOTHING to do with evolution or the age of the fossils---simple observational facts that EVERYONE (except you) agrees with including YECs.

In this forum topic the issue is how no evidence seems to be sufficient for YECs (which you say you don't subscribe to anyway so it doesn't relate to you), or even at the least to acknowledge how other people could conclude the way they do

With similar skeletal structure?

And just happen to be in the exact geologic layer they would need to be, to bridge those two species they supposedly "aren't" related to?

Everyone but me...wow

Yes, actually!

You must know a lot of people.

Hey, if you know someone else who has a pre-1700s view of the fossil record, then there would be 2 of you and you'd have another person to keep you company. If you can't acknowledge simple facts like, for example, that dinosaurs are not found in the bottom most rocks of the fossil record, then I don't know how to converse with someone who won't acknowledge basic reality.

Well, your go-to for someone not seeing the world the way you do is to insult them, at least that is how you have been doing here.

You keep mistaking the truth for insults

No, I'm pointing out that the truth of a matter is one thing, and how we view it is another, have no issues with anyone saying they believe something is true due to this, that, or the other thing, but where I do have issues is when I'm told the only way to see the truth is to look at it the way we do when there is plenty of room for error.

Dinosaurs are either found in the bottom most rocks of the fossil record or they're not. News flash: they're not. That is an objective fact. There is no other way to "see" it. If stating that truth offends you, oh well.

What other way of "seeing" it is there? That we actually do see dinosaurs in the bottom most rocks? Is that what you see? Well sorry to burst your bubble, but that's not what the rest of the world sees.

So which is it: have dinosaurs been found in the bottom most rocks of the fossil record or have they not?