As for the long running request for what type of fossil do I want you to find. Well I have been thinking. Evolution is supposedly random, random mutations creating new species.
Mutation is random, evolution however is not.
Natural Selection is the opposite of random.
What there should be in the fossil record is a lot of creatures with useless features, appendages.
You don't need to fossil record for that. You can just look at extant species for such "useless" features that were once important but not anymore today. Next to that, we also have "repurposed" features - parts that used to be responsible for something else then it is today. And lastly, we also have things that are sub-optimal, because that which causes it to be sub-optimal (and even straight up problematic at times) was a better tradeoff. Here are some examples:
- eyes in moles: they have them, but they don't work anymore. A thick layer of skin covers their non-functioning eyeballs. This is because they started living underground. They required less and less use of their eyes, to the point where their eyes were just a hindrance. When dirt gets in it, they can get infected, for example.
- human teeth: our mouth used to be a lot bigger. But then our brains became bigger, so something had to get smaller. That would be our mouth. Today, our mouth is too small for all our teeth, which is why most people have to have their "wisdom teeth" removed, as it tends to hurt a lot
- human spine: our spine evolved to walk on all fours. It did not evolve for bipedalism. Sure, it has gone through rather big modifications over the generations to enable / facilitate bipedalism, but it's far from optimal. Which is why most people are confronted with lower back pains at some point in their lives.
See, evolution is always about a tradeoff. For example, suppose a mutation that increases bone density. Perhaps that this would be beneficial for a certain species as it helps them to survive better in their habitat. Perhaps it is a mountainous region with a lot of loose rocks, which causes individuals to fall a lot. Better bone density might help with less leg breaking. But adding more density to bones requires additional resources to be spend on it. Resources that can then no longer be spend on other things... Or the organism might perhaps have to eat more, which would put more pressure on the hunt, etc.
Evolution is always a tradeoff. There is always a cost one way or the other.
What I have seen so far is creatures that are all fully developed
Off course, what else? Every creature is a full creature. What did you expect? Half organisms?
Bird ancestors didn't start to develop wings
for the purpose of flying. It's not like that species had to wait for a few million years before its wing was fully developed so that it could finally use it... It doesn't work that way.
Every single stage of it was usefull for that specific species one way or the other.
There are a LOT of examples
alive today of "wings" that exhibit these things. A LOT of creature have "wings" but don't fly. Pinguins for example. Some use it for heat, some use it for hunting purposes, some use it to attract mates, others use it for maintaining body heat,...
The same with the eye.
It's not like you either have to have "no eye" or a "fully developed" eye allowing for 3d hd vision.
Just a few photosensitive cells tell the difference between light and dark. Wich is better then not being able to tell the difference, if sunlight is important.
A few of those cells tucked away in a small cavity gives you the ability to recognise the direction where the light is coming from. As well as detecting movement.
See, this is why you should actually first inform yourself on the stuff you want to argue against. Because
clearly, you have
no clue what evolution theory is all about...