Perhaps you are being militantly unaware. We have something like the fossil record we would expect, given our models of geography and evolution. Will the catch be that none of those morphologically and chronologically in-between things are intermediate species as you define the term?
I don't know. My problem is that we have no proof of what those things are. Just because something "looks" like something else does not mean that one thing came before or after the other or that they are related. All it means - literally - is that one thing "looks" like another or that they have traits on common. The only way that evolution might be proven is to show the process in action, which we have not been able to do. If evolution is an ongoing process, then at some point within our recorded history, some species somewhere should be recorded as having mutated into another completely different species - if not in one pass then at least over a few generations. There is no such record that I am aware of. So as far as I can tell, evolution, to whatever extent it exists, is not a regular, on-going process.
Don't be taken in by assumptions. Because one thing looks like or has traits in common with another, does not mean they are related or have any common ancestor.
My problem with evolution in a nutshell is that its adherents refuse to recognize that it is a belief system which they stick to with a fervor which prevents the possibility of conceiving error or of amending a belief or changing it completely. I remember how doctors and scientists fought so long and hard against the simple process of doctors washing their hands after examining corpses and before delivering babies. That was a major revolution in hygiene which many members of the medical profession fought ardently. It went against their "belief" system. I have no tolerance for belief systems in science. Theories are fine, but subject to change always until there is physical proof.