Transitional forms in existence today

Hi, I have been researching and internally debating the topic evolution /intelligent design for a few years now. Through this researching I've become increasingly convinced that intelligent design is a travesty based on little more than pseudo-science and rhetoric. Up till recently my biggest qualm with evolution was, as creationists put it, the lack of transitional forms in the fossil record. 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. Moreover, it's not as though our DNA itself has any awareness of the external environment around us aside from maybe sensitivity to temperature or PH. (That second reason for doubt is besides the point of my question)I've recently researched transitional forms in the fossil record and have learned that there are in fact (contrary to what creatonists will tell you) transitional forms in the fossil record. However, if evolution is still occuring to this day, how come there are no transitional forms in existense today IE. fish with half formed limbs and such. I understand why the Australopithecines and early human ancestors went extinct, but I imagine there would be at least one living example of a clear transitional form in existence today. Any thoughts? Edited by peter1985, : No reason given.Edited by Admin, : Fix typo in title.

Very interesting. Thanks for the replies.Before I started my research towards a conviction of the topic I decided the wisest way to do it was to approach it with an open mind and as little a bias as possible . Consequently, I read a lot of intelligent design/creationist literature, much of which I have learned over the past year is scientifically inaccurate or misconstrued science. I remember one such book had a chapter devoted to the alleged lack of transnational forms as evidence for a creator and charged that if random mutation was the mechanism for evolution there would be more species "in flux" than wholly formed species. I now see the fallacy that the subjectivity in that argument creates.