@kellyjay said
You are missing the point, the process is supposed to be small changes over time, is it not? This would mean there wouldn't be a hand full of missing links between unique lifeforms today and the past, as if some sort of jump in evolution took place so one died off and another totally different and viable took its place. As the process is described there should be a st ...[text shortened]... on't need extraordinary proof, the day to day stuff is more than enough if you have an honest heart!
Some things all mammals (for example) need, such as a heart to pump the blood around. If a mammal was born without a heart it wouldn't survive, it would be an evolutionary dead - end, so all mammals have hearts, which points to a common ancestry. And then there are the genes, of course; we share common genes with other life forms. We and Chimpanzees share most of our genes, which indicates that we have diverged relatively recently, whereas we share less genes with Orang Utans, and Chimpanzees are more like us in terms of their genetic makeup than they are like Orang Utans, but the point is that we all share some genes, and therefore we are all related to a lesser or greater extent. Which also points to a common ancestor.
I'm sorry that I can't provide a complete and definitive fossil record for you, but science has to work with that which we happen to have thus far discovered.
Anyway, this is rational, deductive thought meeting superstition, so there's no place for us to meet. You will no doubt find a way to deny the findings of genetic science, so I leave you with your Adam and Eve, I'll stay with science.