However, if evolution is still occuring to this day, how come there are no transitional forms in existense today
There are, in fact ALL living things are transitional.
Let me put this a different way.
If you travel from Boston to Los Angeles, then the Mississippi river is a point along the way. It's a "transitional point" between Boston and LA.
However, if you set out from Boston without saying "I'm going to LA" and drive and come to the Mississippi River, you've gone the same distance, ended up at the same point.
If you then proceed on to LA, the river was transitional. If you go to Las Vegas, it was transitional, if you back track and go to Florida, it was transitional.
The waypoint is transitional no matter WHERE you are headed. It's just that we don't know where you are going to end up.
Creationists want to see a "transitional form" between something in the past and something in the future. Do you know the future? I sure don't.
The best answer to this question is "Okay, you present me with an example of the future animal, and I'll show you the living form that was transitional to it".
My second reason for doubt is the very mechanism evolution uses to function- random mutation- which as many biologists acknowledge is usually, if not always, harmful.
Actually, no biologists would acknowledge this because it's not true. The VAST VAST VAST majority of mutations are completely neutral.
Every person alive has mutations and is no worse the wear for it.
Now, of the remaining mutations, the harmful ones are FAR more obvious than the beneficial ones.
If you see someone who was born without eyes as a result of a mutation, you know it right away.
If you see someone who has a mutation that makes him immune to heart disease from chlorestrol, you don't see it.
But, even setting all that aside, and going with the premise that most mutations are bad and only a very few are good - a very few is all that's needed. We're talking about billions of years. Tiny improvements add up.
™ Version 4.2
(1)
