No more than ASSUMING there is 'stuff' between ancient crittern+12,382,987 and ancient crittern+12,382,988.
If you are referring to abiogenesis calculations, you seem to have missed my point that those calculations are useless. Why would I or anyone else assume something based on useless calculations?
If you are referring to transitional fossils, the links are based on morphological, environmental, and genomic similarities as well as the temporal sequence.
Evolutionary scientists use both deductive and inductive reasoning just as any science does. All deductive logical structures eventually boil down to inductive premises. Every single bit of reasoning we do has inductive reasoning somewhere in its history, including your religion and my science. Why would this reasoning work for your religion but not for evolution?
The larger the number of data points available to the inductive reasoning processe the more likely it is to be accurate.