as to your claims:
1. Transitionals
You have yet to answer as to how you would be able to diferentiate between a transitional and a "fully formed" organism. I suspect you are wandering around under the usual creationist's burden of misconceptions as to what a transitional is. How about you answer a simple and specific question? Once (and: If) you do, I will be better able to see where the gaps in your understanding are, and will then be better able to determine what corrective course is required (or: possible).
2. Fossil record
Once again, the absurd demand for an architect to draw a record of a building to a level of resolution comprising the specific location of every molecule... I've rebutted this before, I shall not bother to do so again.
3. Museum directors
Cough it up. Give the URL. At least type in the title, author, publication, and publication date. Until you do, the article exists in your imagination alone as far as I am concerned.
4. "...because my research and common sense verifies what they see."
And what "research" would that be, fabian?
Be very specific, please.
5. DNA
Yeah, and? You make a "watchmaker" argument, which is an example of the logical fallacy of argumentum ad incredulum. That may be your honest reaction, but "oh, wow, that seems awful complex" does not equate to a scientific counterargument against natural processes.
Moreover, as you brought it up, you may as well render your opinion of known transcription errors, viral insertions, inefficiency, and redundancy in this code you find so indicative of a designer. You might also wish to compare DNA to the way computer programs are now constructed using automated evolutionary algorhythms rather than deliberate designer encoding. (courtesy ping to the more knowledgeable).
Now...
Howzabout you simply answer the three specific questions I posted to you one full week ago?
In case they have eluded your notice, they were (and remain) as follows:
1. why do you believe that the fossil record "should" be as complete and comprehensive as you describe?
Please be specific in your answer, including a description of the mechanism of preservation and a rationale for its necessary prevalence in your notional model of history.
2. what makes you believe that a representative organism from a transitional species would be in any way an "incomplete" life form?
Please be specific, including the anatomic anomalies your model predicts as necessary for an "incomplete" life form, and how "incomplete" life forms can be decisively discerned from "complete" life forms.
3. what leads you to assume that (alleged) honesty and earnestness precludes idiocy and error?
Please be as thorough as you can in your answer.
Hard drives were being designed this way a decade ago. It has generated some of the most reliable/durable designs in the industry. It produced good baseline designs that the engineers could then tweak into a production designs; the evolutionary designs were solid, but there were usually a few bits that were noticeably suboptimal in evaluation and which could be fixed without breaking the design if care was taken.