Such fossils are incredibly rare because they're incredibly old. Whatever fossil remains of the species you seek have, for the most part, been obliterated. What you seem to be asking for is a series of skulls from individuals of each and every generation that has existed between Homo Erectus and modern man. The further back in time you go, the more rare they are bound to be. OF COURSE only a few (pictured above) have been found.
And no one was standing around back then with a digital camera either.

I have people who occasionally show up at my door with pretty much the same message. I respect their right to believe whatever they want to believe, but why are they - and you - driven to convince others that they must accept their particular religious mythology rather than science as the basis for natural history. The bible is not a scientific text. It reflects the general level knowledge of the time when it was written. If the life of Jesus had occurred during the 20th Century, the bible would incorporate evolution, space travel, stem cell research and the reality of the world as we now know it. I suggest that you focus on developing you own personal relationship with whatever spiritual being you happen to believe in and not waste your time trying to fit science into a religious straight jacket.

This is where you are wrong, I read the Bible and the Quran and i favour the Quran however the scirptures of old has science in them you just dont study them.

Science does not exclude creation, nor does religion exclude evolution.
What the debate lacks, on all sides, is humility.

religion on itself could accept evolution, but the bible cant.

as for science, pre-big bang theories are not valuable due to lack of empiric evidence it can produce

Your reply neatly sums up the position of the hardliners on both sides. And yet,
there are many theologians who accept the veracity of the Bible but have no difficulty considering evolution. There are also many scientists who are religious and see no contradiction in their beliefs.

__________________
The people who read the books go to the people who can't read the books, the poor people, and say, "We have to have a change." So, the poor people make the change. And then, the people who read the books, they all sit around the big polished tables, and they talk and eat and talk and eat. But what has happened to the poor people? They're dead! That's your revolution. And what happens afterwards? The same fucking thing starts all over again! -
Juan Miranda

Hi Jihn, why should there be an in-between species?

Think of it like this. Once upon a time there's this precursor ape spread over a wide geographic area. At some point the population gets divided up (either physically divided by some sea level rise, say, or at least so widely dispersed that what happens at one end of the range has no effect on the creatures at the other end of the range. So in one place, these creatures continue to evolve, and gradually turn into gorillas. In another place these creatures eveolve and turn into humans. By the time humans and gorillas mingle again they're sufficiently different they no longer breed together. Thus two species, with no "in-between" left.

"More evolved" is a misunderstanding, I think. All creatures are continually exposed to evolutionary pressure. All creatures suffer mutations with greater or lesser effect in the genes. There's no particular reason why humans are "higher" or "more evolved" than gorillas. we just each inhabit a different niche. So going back to the conditions under which humans evolved, the theory would have it that conditions were such as to favour intelligence, manual dexterity, social interaction and other human characteristics. If those conditions persisted long enough then those characteristics would be reinforced by natural selection. Hence no reason for a "half human" to remain. At each stage the creatures with less intelligence would be squeezed out by those with more.

As for DNA, well humans share loads of DNA with other animals, particularly with our near relatives, the chimps. Obviously our DNA is not identical to the chimps - otherwise they'd be human, not chimps.

__________________
No Fear No Hate No Pain No Broken Hearts

but religion is institution of beliefs. at a certain level there needs to be a consensus on meaning, it cannot endlessly accept new interpretations for that undermines the authority on morality.

moderation is the way for both sides to coexist, atheists and religious people, but it requires letting somewhat go of your beliefs and accept being different.

and yes, scientists can believe in god. but their believing is not object of science

FWIW, I have studied the bible. I served one year as a missionary-teacher with the Presbyterian Church (1960-61). It was a learning experience for me. Later, I studied therole of religion as a graduate student in cultural anthropology. My parents were members of a fundamentalist evangelical church. While I am certainly no expert on the Christian bible, I am familiar with it.

Again, neither the bible or quran should be considered a scientific authority. They are religious texts. Attempting to mold science to conform to religion ultimately corrupts both. Religion is based on faith. Yes, certain events listed in these texts have a factual basis (usually determined through scientific research), but the same can be said for works of historical fiction. There was a time when people were tortured and executed because they used scientific methodology instead of religious text to explain natural events. Let's hope we do not return to those dark ages.

Of course. But its not said that those early humans were omnivores, its also possible that they were collectors of food that derives from plants. I really know too little about this field, but I think I heard something like that.

Good question what our common ancestor was, but I think it was rather a frugivore, but dont torture me if thats not correct