"Uh? It is. "not making it" is called going extinct."
You don't understand the point I am trying to make. What the fossil record should contain are examples of creatures that were not viable. If evolution happend by random mutation, there should be things like 5 armed monkeys or something. Things that did not go extinct per se, but things not viable to survive to begin with because some mutations would have to have been fatal. The record, from what I have been able to read, does not contain such examples. That it contains now extinct creatures, yes, that is not a point of contention.
Christ almighty, I'm sorry man but that's a horriable understanding of Christ almighty, I'm sorry man but that's a horrible understanding of evolution.
Evolution works by the process of natural selection. It’s driven by random mutation but filtered by fitness. In every species (other then humans or domesticated) traits that occur but do not contribute to producing a fitter animal do not survive. Your 5 armed monkey dies alone in the forest without having reproduced. (BTW: we can duplicate genes but mammals don’t have ones to create a whole nother limb. You’d significant mutations and breeding to produce a monkey with another functioning arm)
You’re looking for examples of creatures that evolution WOULD NOT have produced in the first place. If a gene were harmful, it would kill that individual that produced it or regulate itself to a small subpopulation of the species (think Parkinson’s Disease). It would not produce a new species because if a significant fraction of the entire pop had those genes, they would all die BEFORE a new species was produced