How Odd the Fortuitousness of the Paleoanthropologists' Finds for Fossils They Say Are Links Proving Hominid Evolution

I will quote one of the scholars in the field of paleoanthropology: Ian Tattersall (Professor and Head of the anthropological department of the American Museum of Natural History in New York City from 1971 to 2010 (now curator emeritus):

"There is certainly no evidence to support the notion that we gradually became what we inherently are over an extended period, in either the physical or the intellectual sense." 

What a damning admission! And yet we are told that there must have been millions of steps needed in the history of primate evolution until the appearance of the species Homo sapiens sapiens; yet, the majority if not the only primate fossils that paleoanthropologists seem to find in this evolution are, strangely, just the relatively few links putatively representative of what they allege to be visibly significant leaps forward towards our species (Man). Why are not the paleoanthropologists tripping all over at least a significantly larger number of some of the supposed millions of evolutionary links? But No! They seem very fortuitously to keep stumbling upon just those very rare and significant fossilized specimens of links that they declare are in a branch of primate evolution leading to Man. It seems to me that most evolutionists are blind to this statistically demonstrated weakness in their theory.