[Species] appear fully-formed with no evidence they evolved, period.
The entire evolutionary history of these species doesn't exist. And, evolutionists have are lame excuses that they can't even agree on why the fossil evidence is missing.
This fatal problem to all but those that want to have blind faith in theory that should have been discarded decades ago:
"The abrupt appearance of higher taxa in the fossil record has been a perennial puzzle. Not only do characteristic and distinctive remains of phyla appear suddenly, without known ancestors, but several classes of a phylum, orders of a class, and so on, commonly appear at approximately the same time, without known intermediates." *James W. Valentine and *Cathryn A. Campbell, "Genetic Regulation and the Fossil Record," in American Scientist Vol. 63, November-December, 1975, p. 673.
The order in which fossils are found in the Cambrian also contradicts the theory of evolution:
"The actual percentage of areas showing this progressive order from the simple to the complex is surprisingly small. Indeed formations with very complex forms of life are often found resting directly on the basic granites. Furthermore, I have in my own files a list of over 500 cases that attest to a reverse order, that is, simple forms of life resting on top of more advanced types." Walter E. Lammert, Growing Doubts: Is Evolutionary Theory Valid? p. 4.
BTW, evolutionists are notorious form naming the same species something different at various stages of history:
"Dr. Eldredge [American Museum of Natural History, New York City] was asked, `Do paleontologists name the same creatures differently when they are found in different geological periods?' He replied that this happens, but they are mistakes. When asked the same question, Dr. Patterson [British Museum, London] replied, `Oh, yes, that's very widely done.' Next he was asked, 'That doesn't seem quite honest. You wouldn't do that, would you?' He said that he hoped he wouldn't . .
Would not this practice make a lot more species? Dr. Raup [Chicago Museum] said it would; perhaps 70 percent of the species described [in the fossil rocks] are later found to be the same as existing species, so 70 percent of the new species named should not have been [given new names but were], either through ignorance or because of the ground rules used by the taxonomists." L.D. Sunderland, Darwin's Enigma (1988), pp. 130-131.
"An assistant of Dr. Eldredge, who was studying trilobite fossils at the American Museum, explained to the author how he made the decision on naming a new species: `I look at a fossil for about two weeks and then if I think it looks different enough, I give it a new name.' So it is simply a matter of judgment with no firm ground rules." Op. cit., p. 131.