Except that in the audio of Patterson is NOT “sa[ying] the same thing” as your claim that “there not being any transitional fossils” – the highlighted passage doesn’t even mention transitional fossils.
Patterson appears to be asking a ‘gotcha’ question – expecting his listeners to condense down the mountain of disparate information they know on the subject of evolution down into a quick verbal answer – a task that would closely resemble Monty Python’s ‘Summarise Proust’ sketch:
That Denyse O’Leary is misrepresenting Patterson is hardly surprising – she is an obscure journalist turned rabid Intelligent Design propagandist, and one with no scientific background or expertise.
The extreme rarity of transitional forms [remains of this dishonest creationist quotemine omitted.]
I have already given you Gould’s opinion on your behavior:
Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists – whether through design or stupidity, I do not know – as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups.
The only question remaining would seem to be which of those two labels best applies.
And I can provide more [dishonest, out-of-context creationist quotemines] form[sic] both Gould and Eldredge and they are saying the same thing.
Why would I care for such carefully confected drivel, especially when the existence of transitional forms is a fact. Here’s a brief summary of them:
If you want more detail on them you can look up the species involved to find more information on them – e.g.:
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Pikaia+gracilens
I am somewhat bemused that the ID movement would go to the trouble of digging up a 40yo quotemine of a 20-year dead paelontologist, when the claim can be demolished by a web search in under a minute. This is perhaps why Larry Moran calls them “IDiots”.