Just look at Cuvier works and you’d see why. At a particular area there are fossils. In a particular region rich with fossil material, you can notice that the deeper you go into the strata is the more dissimilar the fossilized organisms looked compared to the later strata. As a result of this, one can see evidence of gradual evolutionary change.

Also, in Darwin’s voyage of the beagle, he observed fossils of ocean organisms high in the Andes mountains. This fossil evidence showed that there was an evolutionary change when land organism migrated to oceanic environments.

And if some one doubt that; It might be occur that todays animal might not have got fossilised that time and so Evolution theory is wrong. 👿

Then just note— some live evidences are still presnt, and proved. 😮

and if todays animal are direct product of a separate line from creation of life then where do remainants went/lose.??? 🙄

I think that fossils can not fully explane evolutionary process at all, becouse two things:
not all organisms become fossilised and it it’s ocurre or not strongly depend by environment
it is extrimle hard to say about fossils what is ancestor and what is shot branch.
But at the lage distance of evolution second problem become less criticaly

I ve said that "Some might appear" e.g."locus" 😆

I agree. To me the fossil evidence is a more classical evidence of evolution. Now with all the genetic evidence and DNA stuff, and comparing genomes….it’s far more precise.

You are right……..