It's bullshit pseudoscience. The whole concept of discrete species is
itself an oversimplification, and evolution does not proceed by a sudden shift from one generation to the next. It's a slow drift (albeit one where the rate and degree of drift can vary considerably). In stable environments, a single species will tend to diversify into multiple offshoots, or develop a significant internal diversity of form (like what we've done with dogs, through selective breeding). And then some even will occur with puts pressure on that species group, and some will survive, others won't, and when you repeat that over millions of years, you get evolution.
The "missing link" is nonsense. ALL fossils are "transitional fossils". There will ALWAYS be "missing links", because we don't have the bodies of literally every creature that has ever lived. That isn't anything that calls evolutionary theory into question.
This is nonsense. Not only is there huge amounts of evidence backing macroevolution, we've
seen it happen under laboratory conditions.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
http://evolutionlist.blogspot.ca/200...-evidence.html
I am curious, though, how frilled sharks "disprove" evolution. I'm sure you think it's because they're similar to much older shark forms, and have survived relatively unchanged? That doesn't disprove evolution, it proves that frilled sharks have survived and continued to prosper across hundreds of millions of years. That frilled sharks exist alongside all the
other forms of sharks is pretty massive evidence as to how thoroughly wrong you are.