One often repeated claim is that the fossil record is an embarrassment and evolutionists can’t explain the gaps in the fossil records.  This is simply not true.  The truth is that 95% of the fossils consists of shallow marine organisms such as corals and shellfish.  Of  the remaining 5%, 95% are algae and plant/tree fossils, and other invertebrate fossils including the insects.  Thus the vertebrates (fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals) together make up only 1/4^th of 1% of the entire fossil record and most of those are only fossil fragments.  Why did the videos ignore this important information?  The reality is there are relatively few amphibian, reptile, bird, and mammal fossils.  For example, the number of dinosaur skeletons in all the world's museums (both public and university) totals only about 2,100.  “Ashes to ashes, dust to dust.  Most things die and don’t leave a fossil for the rest of us.”  We simply haven’t yet found enough fossils to fill in all the gaps.  The fossil record may be an embarrassment, but that is because we have so few, not because they don’t support change across time.  Many species lived, died, and became extinct without leaving behind any fossils.  As the video pointed out, the coelacanth was believed extinct because the newest fossil was over 70 million years old.  Yet it was still alive.  Did the coelacanth go extinct and then reappear?  No, it has been around all this time.  The area it lived in quit producing fossils and we simply have a 70 million year gap in its fossil record.  This is the case for most species.  It takes a special set of circumstances such as a sediment deposit or lava flow to create fossils and this just doesn’t happen everywhere all the time.  The conditions will exist for a while in a geographic area, create a large group of fossils for that time period, and then conditions change and nothing for thousands, even millions, of years.  All the intermediate species of that geographic area simply don’t get fossilized and therefore will never be found.  To further illustrate this point, we don’t have ANY fossils for many currently living species.  There are currently living about 2,000,000 species and it is estimated that there are at least 200,000,000 extinct species.  The are only about 250,000 species represented by the entire fossil record and many of these are of extinct species.  Does the absence of fossils for a currently living species mean it they didn’t exist in the past?  Of course not.  The Bible says that lions were in Biblical Israel, yet no lion fossils have ever been found in Israel.  Does this mean that the Bible is wrong?

Note: When Dmitri Mendeleev organized the elements into a periodic table, people laughed at him for the gaps in it.  Mendeleev used the known elements to predict the properties and fill in the gaps for the missing elements.  People don't laugh at the Periodic Table now.

Whether or not evolution is responsible, the fossil record makes it clear that new specifies have been forming on this planet.

Jay Gould
"The supposed lack of intermediary forms in the fossil record remains the fundamental canard of current antievolutionism.  Such transitional forms are sparse, to be sure, and for two sets of good reasons — geological (the gappiness of the fossil record) and biological (the episodic nature of evolutionary change, including patterns of punctuated equilibrium, and transition within small populations of limited geographic extent).  But paleontologists have discovered several superb examples of intermediary forms and sequences, more than enough to convince any fair-minded skeptic about the reality of life's physical genealogy."

Carl Sagan
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." (Demon Haunted World)