First of all, the fossil record is very spotty, with typically millions of years and/or hundreds of miles separating one dig from the next.
Second, the average life-span of a "species" is only about one million years before it either goes extinct, or necessarily changes into something different enough to call a new "species".
Third, once a species has become well adapted to its environment, it will not undergo major changes until its environment changes -- i.e., becomes warmer, colder, wetter, dryer, new predators, etc.
At that point change, or extinction, can be very rapid indeed.
Fourth, because of all this, we don't often find detailed records of evolutionary changes, from one species to the next, with lots of transitional intermediate fossils.
But we do have some, and here's one which might be of particular interest to you:
The fact that we classify different distinct species at all means it is a step function, not analog.
Your post is a classic example of “assuming the consequent” - you interpret the evidence through an assumption, then say that the evidence proves that assumption.
You probably don’t even see that you’re doing that.