Animals don't evolve from one thing into another - they share a common ancestor and that ancestor gave rise to two offspring, one of which evolved into animal A and one into animal B. There was no half-frog, half-fish, but a frog and a fish do have an ancestor in common.
It's also the case that missing-link fossils aren't essential to the theory of evolution or natural selection or anything like that. They are consistently pieces of evidence that back up evolution by showing a gradual transition. Fossils are very nice, neat things because they're from the past - they show common ancestors. However, with the ability to analyse DNA and a very strong theoretical base, it is not essential and only beneficial so long as the dating of the fossils agrees with what evolution predicts: that is, a rabbit should not appear before what we believe its ancestor to be - if it does, we either got the wrong ancestor or we have one bit of evidence that conflicts with the mounds of existing evidence. The important part to notice is the mounds of existing evidence - a single piece won't invalidate the rest of it, but a large amount of conflicting evidence would start raising issues.
Now, what theoretical stuff am I suggesting? Game theory, or optimising how to "play" given a set of rules and situations, can adequately explain bizarre behaviour in animals that otherwise make no or little sense and can be used to show that animal behaviour is optimal given their constraints, so long as their environment is fairly constant.
Another area of interest is looking at how many flaws there are in nature and how they can be explained by assuming that that the evolutionary cost of correcting the flaw is too great (that is, the number of mutations that would have to coincide to fix the flaw is so high that the chance is virtually non-existent and, if it did occur, could even make the offspring responsible infertile.) One such example is the human eye's blind spot - I find it hard that an omniscient creator would be unable to give us correctly functioning eyes when other animals do not have them. Oh and before anyone decides to quote the eye as an unexplainably complex feature, there are a variety of different eyes in nature that are of differing complexity and give insight into how our own eyes could have evolved to their modern complexity by going through dozens/hundreds/thousands/millions of discrete steps.
Just to satisfy my own dissatisfaction, despite Tara quoting Darwin stating that evolution is disproved, I'm afraid to say Darwin did not. By removing the very important idea of "complexity through discrete steps" from the quote, it is very much changing the intended meaning of the quote.
As a final parting request, I would like someone to explain how evolution cannot arise, given the modern understanding of sexual reproduction - the shuffling of genes - and the modern understanding of how genes affect what they build - the phenotype or effect that a gene exerts on the world - and that the animals best suited to their environments - the faster or stronger etc - are more likely to survive than those that do not. How is it that genes that program animals that are better at surviving are not passed on to the next generation in greater amounts than genes that do not; how is it that a gene pool that favours genes that aid survival changes as mutations that aid survival enter and genes that diminish survival are lost; how is it that cows can be selectively bred to drastically change their appearance by an intelligent being yet nature cannot selectively breed animals to make them better at surviving.
By reading this signature you agree that mixster is superior to you in each and every way except the bad ways but including the really bad ways.