Are there any unexplained branches of evolution?

Are there any known organisms for whom their ancestries in the fossil record are largely incomplete? I realize that between any two related fossil organisms, there is probably a missing link between them, but are there any species which evolved to a great degree without leaving a record that people have found yet?To clarify, there are transitional fossils between say, Hydracotherium, a small horse-like creature, and modern horses. Similarly, there are transitionals between four-legged mammals and whales, and between dinosaurs and birds. Are there any large gaps, seemingly unrecorded in the fossil record, that scientists can only guess about?This message has been edited by AdminSylas, 05-10-2004 09:48 PMThis message has been edited by Gary, 05-10-2004 09:49 PM

No, don't worry about it. I just changed an "or" to an "and". Thanks for moving the thread so fast!

While they do use their imagination to some degree to try to figure out what primitive horses looked like, but the evolution of horses is extremely well documented in the fossil record. For example, most pictures of Eohippus have spots of stripes, similar to those on a young deer. This is because they were small and lived in a similar environment, so they might have evolved similar markings.Here are pictures and descriptions of fossils:
Page Not Found | Department of ChemistryHere is a link from Talk Origins about the subject, that describes their evolution:
Horse EvolutionFrom the first site, I found this picture: Scientists can also look at the layer that fossils are in to determine the relative age of the fossils to reconstruct the phylogenetic tree of horses. Its not a perfect method, but using more than one method helps to see where an animal fits in the evolution of later animals.

How so? Evolution of horses is strongly backed up by fossil evidence. Look over the websites I posted earlier in Message 21. There is a nearly complete fossil record of horse evolution. There is more to this than simply hypothesizing what horses may have looked like once upon a time. Evolutionary genetics wouldn't work because the fossils are too old to contain DNA. If we had their genetic material, it would be possible to compare them with modern horses, but since it no longer exists, that isn't possible.If horses did not evolve, why do the fossils gradually gain the features of modern horses, such as large size and single toes, and lose the features of more primitive fossils as we move upward through the strata? What causes this ordering of similar animals?Evolution does not cancel out God anyway. It has no apparent reason to continue, so it leaves room for a creator to guide evolution to suit his purposes. I don't know whether or not this was the case, but it's a possibility which is untestable by the scientific method. It does not deal with the creation of the world or the first life forms anyway.You may be interested in this link. It discusses God and Evolution.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-god.htmlThis message has been edited by Gary, 05-13-2004 01:53 AM { AdminSylas: Your closing link strays close to being a violation of forum guidelines. When you present a link, it is intended to support your own discussion; you don't give the link as the argument itself. You could make this link better associated with your own text, by saying something like "The following site considers the notion that God may use evolution, or possibly even guide evolution, along with several other questions related to God and Evolution." We are seeking to avoid a simple battle of the links. The actual positions should be argued here in the forum; with links for reference or greater detail. }This message has been edited by AdminSylas, 05-13-2004 02:07 AM