Transitional Forms and Nested Hierarchies- Support from Darwin and Denton - Andy Schueler eats it

-
I told Andy Schueler that if all the alleged transitional forms were alive, then we would not be able to form a nice strict and objective nested hierarchy. Andy threw a hissy-fit.

However Darwin agrees with me:

Extinction has only defined the groups: it has by no means made them; for if every form which has ever lived on this earth were suddenly to reappear, though it would be quite impossible to give definitions by which each group could be distinguished, still a natural classification, or at least a natural arrangement, would be possible.- Charles Darwin chapter 14
 

And like the coward he is Andy cried "That doesn't support your claim!" LoL! 

Denton agrees with me:

There is another stringent condition which must be satisfied if a hierarchic pattern is to result as the end product of an evolutionary process: no ancestral forms can be permitted to survive. This can be seen by examining the tree diagram on page 135. If any of the ancestors X, Y, or Z, or if any of the hypothetical transitional connecting species stationed on the main branches of the tree, had survived and had therefore to be included in the classification scheme, the distinctness of the divisions would be blurred by intermediate or partially inclusive classes and what remained of the hierarchic pattern would be highly disordered.- Denton, “Evolution: A Theory in Crisis” page 136 (X, Y and Z are hypothetical parental node populations)
 

Oops. Andy sez I can use any judges I want. Well Andy I will take Darwin and Denton.
You lose.