If you are looking at the present, you are looking at a lot of branches of evolution (the ends of branches to be more precisely, eventhough they still grow). It's more difficult to see the gradient, especially cross-species. However you can see it in fossils all the time. There are plenty examples of fossils with rudimentary bone structures or other features that they have in common with other species, sometimes even of a different order. We already know a lot about humans to in this respect, hence the claim of apes being our ancestors. Always remember though that at the time of transition (which was infact a gradient itself!) between ape and man, there weren't a lot of us just yet. Finding very old human remains is rare and slows the overall research in this down. That's why once DNA was discovered people looked into DNA differences too.

When you have a tree it's very difficult if not impossible to judge his age when all you have is the end of a branche.

Evolution is a bit like that, but then we're not after the age, but moreso looking for the stems/roots of a species and it's family ties. This is infact possible. The idea of a 'missing link' only indicates that perhaps the chain should be one link longer instead. It's a bit like wanting to find pure green next to pure yellow, if you wish to find that good luck, because in a (normal color) gradient that's impossible.

Quote:

---

We don't know yet, so we won't make things up like Religion does

---

If we don't know yet, what they claim could be true if their source is accurate, so they're not necessarily making things up. Eventhough in generally I would definately agree with your comment, because I don't believe the bible can be accurate after such a long time,

Cheers