This is like saying that we know how mountains are gradually forming today in Hawaii, but somehow we don't know what formed the emperor seamount chain just because we weren't there to witness it.
You need something more than just personal incredulity to make such an argument. You need an actual evidence based argument.
More on this:
When we look at intermediates in the succession, such as dinosaurs (on left) and birds (on right), we find that the evidence indicates a series of countless small steps, much like we see in the evolution of a Chihuahua from a wolf.
And as noted earlier, arguing about pre-cambrian microscopic soft shelled species and a lack of transitionals preceeding them, really is just a dishonest approach given the following 600 million years of post-cambrian evolution. And I believe it was you and I that had been discussing that topic before.
Just as it would be unreasonable for me to take video footage of Michael Jordan shooting a basketball in first grade and missing a shot, to therefore argue that he was never good at basketball. Assuming you attempt to return to this topic.
And so, in reality, the fossil record actually reflects how things should look, if hypothetically the evolution observed today were the same as that which unfolded in the past. As do evidences from genetics, biostratigraphy, comparative anatomy and morphology, embryology and all that other good stuff.
It is logically the same argument as saying that the emporor seamount was a product of the same mechanisms that exist today, and nothing in the historical geologic record indicates otherwise, just as nothing in the fossil record indicates anything but small steps just as we see today.
And to propose otherwise, you need more than just personal incredulity. And scientifically, there is no case to be made against evolution. And so I would wonder if you have any theological arguments to share. Because presumably, I would have to guess that your theology is what is motivating your ideas (even if you wish to suggest otherwise).